corner graphic

Bible Commentaries

Heinrich Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

Romans Overview

 

 


CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL

COMMENTARY

ON

THE NEW TESTAMENT

HANDBOOK

TO

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

BY

HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, TH.D.

OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER.

TRANSLATED FROM THE FIFTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY

REV. JOHN C. MOORE, B.A.,

HAMBURG.

VOL. I.

EDINBURGH:

T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.

MDCCCLXXIII.

GENERAL PREFACE

BY THE EDITOR

A MONG the many valuable contributions with which the scholars and theologians of Germany have enriched the literature of New Testament exegesis, the Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament of Dr. Meyer has been pronounced by the almost unanimous verdict of competent judges the best, as it is unquestionably the most careful and elaborate, work of its kind. The title indicates with sufficient clearness its distinctive character as at once critical and exegetical, although the former element stands in subordination to the latter. The critical remarks prefixed to each chapter present a lucid statement of the evidence with reference to all questions of any moment affecting the constitution of the text, and are especially valuable for the concise explanations which they give of the probable origin of the various readings, and of the grounds which, in a conflict of evidence and of critical opinion, have determined Dr. Meyer’s own judgment. But, terse and discriminating as is its textual criticism, a still higher value belongs to the exegesis which forms the pith and marrow of the book. While there are many commentaries of more or less excellence which occupy themselves with the theological import of Scripture, with popular exposition or with homiletic illustration, and others which are largely devoted to historical criticism—as it is called, although it is in reality too often mere arbitrary speculation

Dr. Meyer has chosen and has steadily cultivated the special field of exegesis pure and simple. His sole aim is to ascertain the grammatical and historical meaning of Scripture in accordance with the legitimate principles, and in the use of the proper resources, of interpretation, leaving the result thus obtained to be turned to due account by the theologian, the preacher, or the critical inquirer for their respective purposes. That the primary sense of Scripture can be rightly arrived at only by the method of grammatico-historical interpretation, is now admitted on all hands; and it is acknowledged that all Christian theology must rest on the foundation of sure and solid exegesis. The theologian must presume the processes, and must accept the assured results, of interpretation; nor can the preacher be regarded as duly equipped for his work, unless he is able to draw directly from the fountain-head—integros accedere fontes atque haurire—and to quicken and deepen his Christian insight by fresh and daily renewed study of the living word.

In this, as in other departments of science, the best results have been attained by dividing labour and specialising research; and Dr. Meyer has, by the concentration of his energies for upwards of forty years on the exegetical study of the New Testament, made the field essentially his own. The Commentaries on the Gospels, on Acts, and on the Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon proceed from his own hand, and have all of them been revised and enlarged in successive editions—several even a fifth time. For the completion of the work on the same general plan he called in the services of able colleagues

Dr. Lünemann for the Epistles to the Thessalonians and Hebrews, Dr. Huther for the Pastoral and the Catholic Epistles, and Dr. Düsterdieck for the Apocalypse. The labours of Meyer in New Testament exegesis may be regarded as correlative and complementary to those of Winer in New Testament Grammar. While Winer rescued the grammar of the New Testament idiom from the dogmatism and caprice which had prevailed before his time, and rendered it, in the confident but just language of his title-page, “the sure1(1) foundation of New Testament exegesis,” he dealt, from the nature of the case, merely with the isolated phenomena as illustrations. Meyer undertook the task of applying the same principles and methods to the interpretation of the New Testament as a whole. This work he has accomplished with rare exegetical tact and unrivalled philological precision. We say, unrivalled; for—without derogating from the merits of other labourers in the same field, and without denying the excellence more especially of various recent monographs formed after his model—it may safely be affirmed that his work remains, in its own line and in its most characteristic features, unequalled. The only book which, as covering the same ground, may be fairly brought into comparison with it is the “Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Neuen Testament” of de Wette—a masterpiece of exegetical skill, unquestionably well entitled to a place by its side. Each work has its own special excellences; and no one has acknowledged the merits of Meyer more frankly than de Wette himself, who repeatedly refers, as does also Meyer on his part, to the help which each derived from the labours of the other—to the candour with which they accepted, or the fairness with which they controverted, as the case might be, each other’s views—and who pronounced Meyer, even at the outset of his exegetical career, an expositor distinguished by thoroughness (Gründlichkeit), correct perception, and sure judgment. The Handbook of de Wette is marked by a singular power of condensation and felicity of clear and terse expression; but the Commentary of Meyer is superior in philological accuracy, and in the fulness with which it sets forth not only the grounds on which his own interpretation rests, but also the reasons which may be urged in support of, or in opposition to, the interpretations of others—a feature which gives special value to it as a practical discipline for the student of exegesis. And—independently of other considerations—the work of Dr. Meyer possesses the marked advantage of having undergone to a much greater extent successive revisions at the hands of its author, and has thus been enriched, not only by the working in of results gathered in the interval from the labours of others, but also by the ample fruits of the author’s own more extended experience and more mature judgment. The first part of de Wette’s Handbook appeared in 1836, and it was completed in 1848, while his death took place in 1849. The first part of Dr. Meyer’s Commentary appeared in 1832, and it has ever since been receiving alterations and additions down to the spring of the present year. No doubt the work of de Wette has been reissued, since his death, in various editions by able and careful scholars, such as Brückner, Messner, and Moeller. But in this case we have no assurance, that the manipulation which the work has undergone is such as would have been approved by the mature judgment of the author, or even that it may be consistent with his known principles and views. Indeed, a lately reissued part of the work—the Commentary on Acts, as edited by Overbeck—presents a flagrant instance to the contrary. For Dr. Overbeck has not only made additions of his own, which amount to nearly two-thirds of the whole book, but—with a liberty, which in this country we should deem wholly unwarrantable, and strangely disrespectful to the memory of a man so distinguished as de Wette—he has overlaid the original work with a running commentary of tedious minuteness, written in support of critical views, to which de Wette had, in the preface to his own last edition, declared himself wholly opposed.(2) In Dr. Meyer’s case, on the other hand, we have the latest judgments of the great exegete himself, as he passes under review the fresh contributions to the literature of the subject, and in their light re-examines his earlier positions, and recalls, modifies, or vindicates anew his conclusions. Nothing indeed is more remarkable in connection with Dr. Meyer’s work than the results furnished by a comparison of its successive editions, as evincing the diligence with which he read and digested every new academic dissertation that might throw light on his subject, the impartiality and truth-loving spirit with which his mind remained open to fresh light and was ready to change or modify its interpretation wherever there seemed due ground, and the assiduous care with which he revised every sentence. The interleaved sheets—at present in my possession—shewing the corrections and additions made by Dr. Meyer on the fourth edition in preparation for the fifth, furnish, in their MS. erasures and copious marginal annotations, even a more striking illustration of the extent and variety of this alteration than the subjoined specimen, taken ad aperturam, in which I have underlined the portions changed.(3) This constant process of alteration and addition serves to account, in a great measure, for the somewhat awkward form of many of the sentences, broken up as they are by subsequent parenthetical insertions, or prolonged by the appending of fresh clauses not contemplated at the outset.

Fourth Edition.

Fifth Edition.

Romans 5:1. ο ν folgert aus dem ganzen vorigen Abschnitt Romans 3:21 to Romans 4:25, und zwar formell so weiterführend, dass δικαιωθέντες gleich nach διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμ. mit sieghaftem Nachdrucke wieder an die Spitze tritt. In welcher beglückenden Heilsgewissheit die Gläubigen vermöge ihrer durch den Glauben eingetretenen Rechtfertigung ( δικαιωθέντες) sich befinden (nicht ihre Heiliguny, wie Rothe will), soll nun geschildert werden.

εἰρήνην ἔχ. π. τ. θεόν] Der Gerechtfertigte ist nicht mehr in dem Verhältnisse eines Menschen, dem Gott feind sein muss und ist ( ἐχθρὸς θεοῦ, Romans 5:9 f.) sondem Frieden (nicht allgemein: Befriedigung, Genüge, wie Th. Schott meint) hat er in seinem Verhältnisse zu Gott. Es ist der Friede, der im bewussten objectiven Zustande der Versöhnung besteht, das Gegentheil des Zustandes, in welchem man dem göttlichen Zorne verfallen ist. Mit der Rechtfertigung tritt dieser Friede als sofortige und dauernde Folge derselben ein. Daher δικαιωθἐντες

ἔχομεν (vrgl. Acts 9:31. John 16:33.). Und durch Christum ( διὰ τοῦ κυρίου etc.) ist dieser Besitz vermittelt, was sich zwar von selbst versteht, aber nach der Stärke und Fülle der eigenen Glaubenserfahrung des Ap. sehr natürlich noch besonders hervortritt, um an diese objective Ursache des Friedensstandes wie triumphirend auzuknüpfen, was wir ihr hinsichtlich des fraglichen Punktes zu verdanken haben Romans 5:2.

πρός (von der ethischen Beziehung, Bernhardy p. 265.) wie Acts 2:47; Acts 24:16. Vrgl. Herodian. 8, 7. 8.: ἀντὶ πολέμου μὲν εἰρήνην ἔχοντες πρὸς θεούς. Plat. Pol. 5. p. 465. B.: εἰρήνην πρὸς ἀλλήλους οἱ ἄνδρες ἄξουσιν. Legg. 12. p. 955. B. Alc. I. p. 107. D. Nicht zu verwechseln mit dem göttlich gewirkten innern Frieden (von welchem Philippians 4:7. εἰρήνη τοῦ θεοῦ zu fassen ist, vrgl. Kol. Romans 3:15.); sondern dieser ist das subjective Correlat des objectiven εἰρήνη πρὸς τ. θεόν.

Romans 5:1. ο ν folgert aus dem ganzen vorigen Abschnitt Romans 3:21 to Romans 4:25, und zwar formell so weiterführend, dass δικαιωθέντες gleich nach διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμ. mit sieghaftem Nachdrucke wieder an die Spitze tritt. In welcher beglückenden Heilsgewissheit die Gläubigen vermöge ihrer durch den Glauben eingetretenen Rechtfertigung sich befinden, soll nun näher dargelegt, nicht aber soll ermahnt werden (Hofm. nach der Lesart ἔχωμεν) “unser Verhältniss zu Gott ein Friedensverhältniss sein zu lassen” (durch Glaubensleben), wobei der Nachdruck, welcher doch offen bar zunächst auf δικαιωθ. und dann auf εἰρήνην ruht, auf διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμ. . χ. liegen soll.

εἰρήνην ἔχ. π. τ. θεόν] Der Gerechtfertigte befindet sich nicht mehr in dem Verhältnisse eines Menschen, dem Gott feind sein muss und ist ( ἐχθρὸς θεοῦ, Romans 5:9 f.), sondern Frieden (nicht allgemein: Befriedigung, Genüge, wie Th. Schott meint) besitzt er in seinem Verhältnisse zu Gott. Das ist der Friede, der im bewussten objectiven Zustande der Versöhnung besteht, das Gegentheil des Zustandes, in welchem man dem göttlichen Zorne und dem sensus irae verfallen ist. Mit der Rechfertigung tritt dieser Friede als sofortige und dauernde Folge derselben ein.1Daher δικαιωθέντες

ἔχομεν (vrgl. Acts 9:31. John 16:33.). Und durch Christum ( διὰ τοῦ κυρίου etc.) als den εἰρηνοποιός, ist ihm dieses pacem obtinere (Bremi ad Isocr. Archid. p. 111.) vermittelt, was sich zwar von selbst versteht, aber nach der Stärke und Fülle der eigenen Glaubenserfahrung des Ap. sehr natürlich noch besonders wieder hervortritt, um an diese objective Ursache des Friedensstandes wie triumphirend anzuknüpfen, was wir ihr hinsichtlich des fraglicher Punktes zu verdanken haben Romans 5:2. Um so weniger ist Grund vorhanden, διὰ τοῦ κυρίου etc. an εἰρήνην anzuschliessen (Stölting); es gehört wie πρὸς τ. θεόν nach der Stellung von ἔχομεν zu diesem Worte.

πρός (von der ethischen Beziehung, Bernhardy p. 265.) wie Acts 2:47; Acts 24:16. Vrgl. Herodian. 8, 7. 8 : ἀντὶ πολέμου μὲν εἰρήνην ἔχοντες πρὸς θεούς. Plat. Pol. 5. p. 465. B.: εἰρήνην πρὸς ἀλλήλους οἱ ἄνδρες ἄξουσιν. Legg. 12. p. 955. B. Alc. I. p. 107. D., Xenoph. u. A. Nicht zu verwechseln mit dem göttlich gewirkten Gemüthszustand des Seelenfriedens, von welchem Philippians 4:7. εἰρήνη τοῦ θεοῦ zu fassen ist, vrgl. Kol. Romans 3:15.; sondern dieser ist das subjective Correlat des objectiven Verhältnisses der εἰρήνη, welche wir πρὸς τ. θεόν haben, obwohl mit letzterer untrennbar verbunden.

In estimating the character and value of Dr. Meyer’s work, it is essential that we should always bear in mind the precise standpoint from which it is written. That is simply and solely, as we have already indicated, the standpoint of the exegete, who endeavours in the exercise of his own independent judgment to arrive, by the use of the proper means, at the historical sense of Scripture. His object is not to seek support for the doctrines, nor does he bind himself or regulate his operations by the definitions or decisions of any particular Church. On the contrary, he reaches his results by a purely exegetical process, and places them, when so found, at the disposal of the Church. Under these circumstances, it is not perhaps surprising that these results do not in all respects accord with the traditional interpretation, or with the received doctrines, of the Church to which he belonged (the Lutheran). But as little is it surprising, on the other hand, that the longer Dr. Meyer prosecuted the study of Scripture from his own standpoint, the closer was the approximation of his general results to the conclusions embodied in the great Confessions of the Protestant Church. Some petulant critics, indeed, who seem slow to give to any that differ from them credit for that love of the truth to which they themselves lay claim, have sneered at the comparatively conservative and orthodox issues of his later exegesis; but no one has ventured openly to affirm that these issues were reached otherwise than by the consistent and conscientious application of his exegetical principles. The general result in Dr. Meyer’s case—which is only what may be reasonably expected, unless we are to suppose that the great body of earlier interpreters have studied Scripture wholly in vain—coincides with the well-known statement of Winer, that “the controversies among interpreters have usually led back to the admission that the old Protestant views of the meaning of Scripture are the correct ones.”(4) If the study of this book is fitted to supersede a mere blind attachment to foregone conclusions, it is no less adapted to counteract the too prevalent tendency in our own day to empty Scripture of all definite and objective significance, or to find in it just what suits the sentiments or wishes of the seeker.

Much impressed by frequent use with the value of the work, I have long cherished a wish that its contents might be made available in an English dress to the professional student of Scripture, who might not be able to consult it with facility in the original; and when sometime ago Messrs. Clark obtained the consent of the German publishers to the issue of an English translation, I undertook at their request, and with the readily given sanction of Dr. Meyer, to edit the work. I was induced to do so, not only because it seemed important that the translation of such a work should be executed on uniform principles, and on a common plan—which it was not likely to be, if its several parts were rendered by different translators acting independently—but also because it appeared desirable that a work of so technical a character, the value of which largely depends on the minute accuracy of the rendering, should be revised and passed through the press by some one more or less familiar with its professional use. It has frequently happened that translations otherwise good have been disfigured by blunders springing from the want of this special knowledge on the part of the translators.(5) I trust that the present translation—on which no small pains have been bestowed both by the translators and by the reviser—may be found tolerably free from these grosser errors; although, on looking into it afresh, I find not a few instances in which the effort to reproduce the form as well as the matter of the original may occasion some perplexity to the English reader, and there are others where I am by no means certain that we have seized or have clearly enough expressed the meaning. This specially applies to some of the passages in which Dr. Meyer deals with the new interpretations so copiously thrown out by the subtlety of Dr. von Hofmann of Erlangen, whose ingenious refinements and obscurities—to which I suppose Dr. Meyer’s strong language towards the close of his Preface to the German edition to allude—are by no means easy to render. The changes which, in the fulfilment of my somewhat delicate task, I have ventured to make may not

I can well suppose—always appear to the translators as improvements; and it is but fair to them that I should accept the responsibility of the form in which their translation appears.

In reproducing so great a masterpiece of exegesis, I have not thought it proper to omit any part of its discussions or of its references—however little some of these may appear likely to be of interest or use to English scholars—because an author such as Dr. Meyer is entitled to expect that his work shall not be tampered with, and I have not felt myself at liberty to assume that the judgment of others as to the expediency of any omission would coincide with my own. Nor have I deemed it necessary to append any notes of dissent from, or of warning against, the views of Dr. Meyer, even where these are decidedly at variance with opinions which I hold. Strong representations were made to me that it was desirable to annex to certain passages notes designed to counteract their effect, but it is obvious that, if I had adopted this course in some instances, I should have been held to accept or approve of the author’s views in other cases where I had not inserted any such caveat. The book is intended for, and can in fact only be used with advantage by, the professional scholar. Its general exegetical excellence far outweighs its occasional doctrinal defects; and, in issuing it without note or comment, I take for granted that the reader will use it, as he ought, with discrimination. He will find a valuable exhibition of complementary views in the American translation of Dr. Lange’s Commentary, accompanied with elaborate notes by Dr. Schaff, and issued in this country by Messrs. Clark, while the logical sequence and doctrinal significance of the Epistle will be found specially developed in the Commentary of Dr. Charles Hodge.

The translation of the present volume has been made with care by the Rev. John C. Moore. I have revised it throughout, and carried it through the press. I subjoin to this Preface a note of the Exegetical Literature of the Epistle to the Romans, and of the Pauline or Apostolic Epistles generally; because information respecting it is often desired, and is only to be gathered from such works as Walch’s Bibliotheca Theologica, Winer’s Handbuch der theologischer Literatur, Darling’s Cyclopaedia Bibliographica, and other sources, which are not always accessible to the student. I have also indicated, in general, the official position of the writers, and the date of their death. A notice is also prefixed to this volume—once for all—of some abbreviations, etc. used throughout the work.

The General Preface, specially written by Dr. Meyer for the English translation, will now be read with a deeper interest, as it was the last production of his pen. As these sheets were passing through the press—and while recent accounts had testified to the almost unimpaired vigour with which he was still pursuing in a green old age the revision of his Commentary—the news arrived of his death, after a very brief illness, on the 21st of June. The life of a scholar presents in general little of outward incident; but the following brief outline of the leading facts in his career, which has been kindly furnished to me by his son Dr. Gustav Meyer, will not be without interest.

Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer was born on 10th January 1800 at Gotha, where his father was shoemaker to the Court. He attended the Gymnasium of his native town, where he was imbued by Schulze, Doering, and Rost with the most earnest zeal for the study of the classical languages, and, while at school there, he laid the foundation of those sure and solid attainments, and of that grammatical acuteness and precision, by the application of which to exegesis he has acquired so well founded a reputation in the theological world. At the age of eighteen he finished his school course with the greatest distinction as primus omnium, and entered the University of Jena, with a view to study theology under the guidance of Gabler, Danz, and Schott, while he also attended the prelections of Luden on History and of Fries on Philosophy. After two years and a half of study there he left Jena, passed his examination, and went to Grone near Göttingen, to act as resident tutor in the Academy of Pastor Oppermann, whose daughter he afterwards married. In January 1823, after having been examined afresh, he was appointed to the pastoral cure of the hamlet of Osthausen. On the dying out of the Gotha line, Osthausen was annexed to the Duchy of Meiningen. While settled there, he issued his edition of the Libri symbolici ecclesiae Lutheranae, which was published in 1830 by Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht at Göttingen. He had already acquired, in the year 1827, by Colloquium from the Consistory of Hannover the necessary recognition ad eundem in that kingdom, and in January 1831 he became pastor at Harste near Göttingen. Here he commenced the work, to which with untiring zeal he devoted himself (mostly during the earliest hours of the morning) down to the end of his life—his Commentary on the New Testament. In the autumn of 1837 he was called to Hoya as Superintendent, and after four years was transferred to Hannover as Consistorialrath, Superintendent and Pastor Primarius in the Neustädter Kirche. In 1845 the degree of Doctor of Theology was conferred on him by the Theological Faculty of Göttingen. A very painful abdominal affection in the year 1846, which compelled him to refrain entirely from work for a considerable period, tended to mature his resolution to give up a position which involved too great an amount of labour, and to devote himself to the Consistory alone. He did so accordingly in the summer of 1848. In May 1861 he received the title of Oberconsistorialrath. On the 1st October 1865 he retired, retaining at first the superintendence of certain examinations, which however he soon also gave up. During the night of the 15th June in the present year he was seized with intussusception, which proved beyond the reach of medical skill, and which, after a painful illness, put an end to his busy life on the 21st of June.

If the great work, on which rests his fame, shall meet in this country with but a tithe of the acceptance which it has found in Germany, those who have taken part with me in reproducing it will not account their labour lost.

W. P. D.

GLASGOW COLLEGE, September 1873.

EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE

[For Commentaries, and collections of Notes, embracing the whole New Testament, see Preface to the Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew. The following list includes works which deal with the Apostolic or the Pauline Epistles generally, or which treat specially of the Epistle to the Romans. Works mainly of a popular or practical character have, with a few exceptions, been excluded, since, however valuable they may he on their own account, they have but little affinity with the strictly exegetical character of the present work. Several of the older works named are of little value; others are chiefly doctrinal or controversial. Monographs on chapters or sections are generally noticed by Meyer in loc(6) The editions quoted are usually the earliest; al. appended denotes that the work has been more or less frequently reprinted. † marks the date of the author’s death, c. = circa, an approximation to it.]

ALEXANDER Natalis. See NOEL (Alexandre).

ALTING (Jacobus), (9) 1679, Prof. Theol. at Gröningen: Commentarius theoretico-practicus in Epistolam ad Romanos. [Opera.] 2°, Amstel. 1686.

AMBIANENSIS (Georgius), (10) 1657, Capuchin monk at Paris: Trina Pauli theologia … seu omnigena in universas Pauli epistolas commentaria exegetica, tropologica et anagogica. 2°, Paris. 1649–50.

AMBROSIASTER [or PSEDDO-AMBROSIUS], c(11) 380, generally identified with Hilarius the Deacon: Commentarius in Epistolas xiii. B. Pauli. [Ambrosii Opera.]

ANSELMUS [or HERVEUS], c(12) 1100: Enarrationes in omnes S. Pauli Epistolas. 2°, Paris. 1533.

AQUINAS (Thomas), (13) 1274, Scholastic: Expositio in omnes Epistolas S. Pauli. 2°, Basil. 1475 al(14)

ARBOREUS (Joannes), c(15) 1550, Prof. Theol. at Paris: Commentarius in omnes Pauli Epistolas. 2°, Paris. 1553.

ARETIUS (Benedictus), (16) 1574, Prof. Theol. at Berne: Commentarii in omnes Epistolas D. Pauli, et canonicas. 2°, Morgiis, 1683.

BALDUIN (Friedrich), (17) 1627, Prof. Theol. at Wittenberg: Commentarius in omnes Epistolas apostoli Pauli … (Separately, 1608–1630). 4°, Francof. 1644 al(18)

BAUMGARTEN-CRUSIUS (Ludwig Friedrich Otto), (20) 1843, Prof. Theol. at Jena: Commentar zum Römerbrief. 8°, Jena, 1844.

BEDA Venerabilis, (21) 735, Monk at Jarrow: Expositio in Epistolas Pauli [a Catena from the works of Augustine, probably by Florus Lugdunensis, c(22) 852], et In Epistolas septem catholicas liber. [Opera.].

BEELEN (Jean-Théodore), R. C. Prof. of Or. Lang. at Louvain: Commentarius in Epistolam S. Pauli ad Romans 8°, Lovanf, 1854.

BELSHAM (Thomas) (23) 1829, Unitarian minister in London: The Epistles of Paul the Apostle translated, with an exposition and notes. 4°, Lond. 1822.

BENECKE (Wilhelm), (24) 1837, retired Hamburg merchant: Der Brief Pauli an die Römer erläutert; 8°, Heidelb. 1831.

Translated.… 8°, Lond. 1854.

BISPING (August), R. C. Prof. Theol. at Münster: Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Briefen der Apostels Paulus. 8°, Münster, 1854–8 al(25)

BOEHME (Christian Friedrich), (26) 1844, Pastor at Lucka near Altenburg: Epistola Pauli ad Romanos Graece cum commentario perpetuo. 8°, Lips. 1806.

BRAIS (Etienne de), c(27) 1680, Prof. Theol. at Saumur: Epistolae Pauli ad Romanos analysis paraphrastica cum notis. 4°, Salmurii, 1670.

BRENT (Johann), (28) 1570, Provost at Stuttgard: Commentarius in Epistolam ad Romans 2°, Francof. 1564 al(29)

BROWN (David), D.D., Prof. Theol. Free Church College, Aberdeen: Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, embracing the last results of criticism. 12°, Glasg. 1860.

BROWN (John), D.D., (30) 1858, Prof. Exeg. Theol. to the United Presbyterian Church, Edinburgh: Analytical Exposition of the Epistle of Paul … to the Romans 8°, Edin. 1857.

BRUNO, (31) 1101, Founder of the Carthusian Order: Commentarius in omnes Epistolas Pauli. 2°, Paris. 1509.

BUCER (Martin), (32) 1551, Prof. Theol. at Cambridge: Metaphrasis et enarratio in Epistolam Pauli ad Romans 2°, Basil. 1562.

BUGENHAGEN (Johann), (33) 1558, Prof. Theol. at Wittenberg: Interpretatio Epistolae Pauli ad Romans 8°, Hagenoae, 1523.

BULLINGER (Heinrich), (34) 1575, Pastor at Zürich: Commentarii in omnes Epistolas apostolorum. 2°, Tiguri, 1537 al(35)

CAJETANUS [Tommaso da Vio], (36) 1534, Cardinal: Epistolae S. Pauli et aliorum apostolorum ad Graecam veritatem castigatae et juxta sensum literalem enarratae. 2°, Venet. 1531 al(37)

CALVIN [CHAUVIN] (Jean), (39) 1564: Commentarii in omnes Epistolas Pauli apostoli atque etiam Epistolam ad Ebraeos; necnon in Epistolas canonicas. 2°, Genevae, 1551 al(40)

CAPELLUS [CAPPEL] (Louis), (41) 1658. See ACTS.

CARPZOV (Johann Benedict), (42) 1803, Prof. Theol. and Greek at Helmstadt: Stricturae theologicae et criticae in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos … 8°, Helmstad. 1758.

CASSIODORUS (Magnus Aurelius), (43) 563, Chancellor of the Ostrogoth empire: Complexiones in Epistolas apostolorum, in Acta et in Apocalypsim quasi brevissima explanatione decursas.… 8°, Florent. 1721 al(44)

CATARINO (Ambrogio). See POLITI (Lanzelotto).

CHALMERS (Thomas), D.D., (45) 1847, Principal of F. C. College, Edinburgh: Lectures on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans 12°, Glasg. 1842 al(46)

CHRYSOSTOMUS (Joannes), (47) 407, Archbishop of Constantinople: Homiliae in Epistolas Pauli.[Opera.]

CHYTRAEUS [or KOCHHAFE] (David), (48) 1600, Prof. Theol. at Rostock: Epistola Pauli ad Romanos, brevi ac dialectica dispositione partium et grammatica declaratione textus … explicata. 8°, n. p. 1599.

CLAUDE (Jean), (49) 1687, Minister at the Hague: Commentaire sur l’Epître aux Romains. [Oeuvres.]

CONTARINI (Gaspare), (50) 1542, Cardinal: Scholia in Epistolas Pauli. [Opera.] 2°, Paris. 1571 al(51)

CONTZEN (Adam), (52) 1618, Jesuit at Mentz: Commentaria in Epistolam S. Pauli ad Romans 2°, Colon. 1629.

CONYBEARE (William John, M.A.), HOWSON (John Saul), D.D.: Life and Epistles of St. Paul. 4°, Lond. 1852 al(53)

COX (Robert) M.A., P. C. of Stonehouse, Devon: Horae Romanae, or an attempt to elucidate St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, by an original translation, explanatory notes, and new divisions. 8°, Lond. 1824.

CRAMER (Johann Andreas), (54) 1788, Prof. Theol. at Kiel: Der Brief Pauli an die Römer aufs neue übersetzt und ausgelegt. 4°, Leip. 1784.

CRELL (Johann), (55) 1633, Socinian teacher at Cracow: Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos, ex praelectionibus ejus conscriptus a Jona Schlichtingio.… 8° Racov. 1636.

CRUCIGER [CREUZINGER] (Kaspar), (56) 1548, Pastor at Leipzig: Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Romans 8°, Vitemb. 1567.

DALE (John): Analysis of all the Epistles of the New Testament. 12° Oxf. 1652.

DELITZSCH (Franz), Prof. Theol. at Leipzig: Brief an die Römer aus dem griechischen Urtext in das hebräische uebersetzt und aus Talmud und Midrasch erläutert. 8° Leip. 1870.

DICKSON (David), (58) 1662, Prof. Theol. at Glasgow and Edinburgh: Expositio analytica omnium apostolicarum Epistolarum.… 4°, Glasg. 1645.

and Analytical Exposition of all the Epistles. 2°, Lond. 1659.

DIONYSIUS CARTHUSIANUS [DENYS DE RYCKEL], (60) 1471, Carthusian monk: Elucidissima in divi Pauli Epistolas commentaria. 8°, Paris. 1531.

EDWARDS (Timothy), M.A., Vicar of Okehampton, Devon: Paraphrase, with critical annotations on the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, with an analytical scheme of the whole. 4°, Lond. 1752.

EST [ESTIUS] (Willem Hessels van), (61) 1613, R. C. Chancellor of Douay: In omnes beati Pauli et aliorum apostolorum Epistolas commentarius. 2°, Duaci, 1614–16, al(62)

EWALD (Georg Heinrich August), Prof. Or. Lang. at Göttingen: Die Sendschreiben des Apostels Paulus übersetzt und erklärt. 8°, Götting. 1857.

EWBANK (William Withers), M.A., Incumbent at Everton: Commentary on the Epistle of Paul to the Romans … 8°, Lond. 1850–51.

FABER Stapulensis (Jacobus) [Jacques Lefevre d’Etaples], (63) 1536, resident at Nerac: Commentarius in Epistolas Pauli … 2°, Paris. 1512 al(64)

FELL (John), (66) 1686, Bishop of Oxford: A Paraphrase and annotations upon all the Epistles of St. Paul, by Abraham Woodhead, Richard Allestry and Obadiah Walker. Corrected and improved by Dr. John Fell. [First issued anonymously in 1675.] 8°. Lond. 1708.

FERME (Charles), (67) 1617, Principal of Fraserburgh College: Analysis logica in Epistolam ad Romans 12°, Edin. 1651 al(68)

FERUS [WILD] (Johannes), (69) 1554, Cathedral Preacher at Mentz: Exegesis in Epistolam Paulli ad Romans 8°, Paris. 1559.

FEUARDENT (François), (70) 1612, Franciscan preacher at Paris: Commentarius in Epistolam ad Romans 8°, Paris, 1599.

FLATT (Johann Friedrich von), (71) 1821, Prof. Theol. at Tübingen: Vorlesungen über den Brief Pauli an die Römer, herausgegeben von Ch. D. F. Hoffmann. 8°, Tübing. 1825.

FLORUS Lugdunensis, c(72) 852. See BEDA.

FORBES (John), LL.D., Prof. of Oriental Languages at Aberdeen: Analytical commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, tracing the train of thought by the aid of parallelism. 8°, Edinb. 1868.

FRITZSCHE (Karl Friedrich August), (73) 1846, Prof. Theol. at Rostock: Pauli ad Romanos Epistola. Recensuit et cum commentariis perpetuis edidit. 8°, Halis, 1836–43.

FROMOND (Libert), (74) 1653, Prof. Sac. Scrip. at Louvain: Commentarius in omnes Epistolas Pauli apostoli et in septem canonicas aliorum apostolorum epistolas. 2°, Lovan. 1663 al(75)

GAGNÉE (Jean de), (76) 1549, Rector of the University of Paris: Brevissima et facillima in omnes divi Pauli et canonicas epistolas scholia. 8°, Paris, 1543 al(77)

GERHARD (Johann), (78) 1637, Prof. Theol. at Jena: Adnotationes posthumae in Epistolam at Romanos, cum Analectis Jo. Ernesti Gerhardi. 4°, Jenae. 1666 al(79)

GLÖCKLER (Conrad),: Der Brief des Apostel Paulus an die Römer erklärt. 8°, Frankf.-a.-M. 1834.

GOMAR (François), (80) 1641, Prof. Theol. at Gröningen: Analysis et explication Epistolarum Pauli ad Romanos, Gal. Philipp. Coloss. Philem. Hebraeos. [Opera.] 2°, Amstel. 1644.

GRÖNEWEGEN (Henricus), (81) 1692, Minister at Enkhuizen: Vytleginge van den Zendbrief Paulli aan de Romeynen. 4°, Gorinchem, 1681.

GUALTHER [WALTHER] (Rudolph), (82) 1586, Pastor at Zurich: Homiliae in omnes Epistolas apostolorum. 2°, Tiguri, 1599.

GUILLIAUD (Claude), (83) 1550, Theological Lecturer at Autun: Collationes in omnes Epistolas Pauli. 4°, Lugd. 1542 al(84)

HALDANE (Robert), of Airthrey, (85) 1842: Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, with remarks on the Commentaries of Dr. Macknight, Prof. Tholuck, and Prof. Moses Stuart. 12°, Lond. 1842 al(86)

HAYMO, (87) 853, Bishop of Halberstadt [or REMIGIUS]: Commentarius in Epistolas S. Pauli. 2°, Paris. 1556 al(88)

HEMMING [or HEMMINGSEN] (Niels), (89) 1600, Prof. Theol. at Copenhagen: Commentarius in omnes Epistolas apostolorum. 2°, Lips. 1572 al(90)

HEMSEN (Johann Tychsen), (91) 1830, Prof. Theol. at Göttingen: Der Apostel Paulus, sein Leben, Wirken, und siene Schriften herausgegeben von F. Luecke. 8°, Götting. 1830.

HENGEL (Wessel Albert van), Prof. Theol. in Leyden: Interpretatio Epistolae Pauli ad Romans 8°, Lugd. Bat. 1854–9.

HERVEUS DOLENSIS, c(92) 1130, Benedictine. See ANSELMUS.

HESHUSIUS (Tilemann), (93) 1588, Prof. Theol. at Helmstadt: Commentarius in omnes Epistolas Pauli. 2°, Lips. 1605.

HIPSTED (Johann), (94) 1681, Prof. in Gymnasium at Bremen: Collationes philologicae in Epistolam ad Romans 4°, Bremae, 1675.

HODGE (Charles), D.D., Prof. Theol. at Princeton: Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans 8°, Philadelphia, 1835 al(95)

HOFMANN (Johann Christian Konrad von), Prof. Theol. at Erlangen: Die Heilige Schrift Neuen Testaments zusammenhängend untersucht. III. Theil. Brief an die Römer. 8°, Nördlingen, 1868.

HUGO DE S. VICTORE, (96) 1141, Monk at Paris: Quaestiones circa Epistolas Pauli. [Opera.]

HYPERIUS [GERHARD] (Andreas), (97) 1564, Prof. Theol. at Marburg: Commentarii in Pauli Epistolas. 2°, Tiguri, 1583.

JATHO (Georg Friedrich), Director of Gymnasium at Hildesheim: Pauli Brief an die Römer nach seinem inneren Gedankengange erläutert. 8°, Hildesheim, 1858–9.

JOWETT (Benjamin), M.A., Master of Balliol College, Oxford: The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, Galatians, Romans, with critical notes and dissertations. 8°, Lond. 1855.

JUSTINIANI [GIUSTINIANI] (Benedetto), (98) 1622, S. J. Prof. Theol. at Rome: Explanations in onmes Pauli Epistolas [et in omnes catholicas]. 2°, Lugd. 1612–21.

KNIGHT (Robert): A Critical Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Romans 8°, Lond. 1854.

KÖLLNER (Wilhelm Heinrich Dorotheus Eduard), c(101) 1850, Prof. Theol. at Göttingen: Commentar zu dem Briefe des Paulus an die Römer. 8°, Darmst. 1834.

KREHL (August Ludwig Gottlob), (102) 1855, Prof. Pract. Theol. at Leipzig: Der Brief an die Römer ausgelegt. 8°, Leip. 1849.

LAPIDE (Cornelius à) [VAN DEN STEEN], (104) 1637, S. J. Prof. of Sacred Scripture at Louvain: Commentaria in omnes D. Pauli Epistolas. 2°, Antwerp. 1614 et al(105)

LAUNAY (Pierre de), Sieur de La Motte: Paraphrase et exposition sur les Epistres de S. Paul. 4°, Saumur et Charenton, 1647–50.

LEEUWEN (Gerbrand van), (106) 1721, Prof. Theol. at Amsterdam: Verhandeling van den Sendbrief Paulli aan de Romeynen. 4°, Amst. 1688–99.

LEWIN (Thomas), M.A.: The life and Epistles of S. Paul. 8°, Lond. 1851.

LIMBORCH (Philipp van), (107) 1712, Arminian Prof. Theol. at Amsterdam: Commentarius in Acta Apostolorum et in Epistolas ad Romanos et ad Ebraeos. 2°, Roterod. 1711.

LIVERMORE (Abiel Abbot), Minister at Cincinnati: The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, with a commentary and revised translation, and introductory essays. 12°, Boston, U. S., 1855.

LOCKE (John), (108) 1704. See GALATIANS.

LOMBARDUS (Petrus), (109) 1160, Scholastic: Collectanea in omnes Epistolas D. Pauli ex. SS. Patribus. 2°, Paris. 1535 al(110)

MACKNIGHT (James), D.D., (111) 1800, Minister at Edinburgh: A new literal translation … of all the apostolical Epistles, with a commentary and notes, philological, critical, explanatory and practical … 4°, Edin. 1795 al(112)

MAIER (Adalbert), R. C. Prof. Theol. at Freiburg: Commentar über den Brief Pauli an die Römer. 8°, Freiburg, 1847.

MARTYR (Peter) [VERMIGLI], (113) 1562, Prof. Theol. at Strasburg: In Epistolam ad Romanos commentarii … 2°, Basil. 1558, al(114)

MEHRING (H. J. F.): Der Brief Pauli an die Römer uebersetzt und erklärt. 8°, Stettin, 1859.

MELANCHTHON (Philipp), (115) 1560, Reformer: Adnotationes in Epistolas Pauli ad Romanos et Corinthios … 4°, Basil. 1522.

Commentarii in Ep. Pauli ad Romans 8°, Argent. 1540.

Epistolae Pauli ad Romanos scriptae enarratio … 8°, Vitemb. 1556 al(116)

MELVILLE (Andrew), (117) 1622, Principal of St. Mary’s College, St. Andrews: Commentarius in divinam Pauli Epistolam ad Romanos … 8°, Edin. 1849.

MOMMA (Willem), (118) 1677, Pastor at Middelburg: Meditationes posthumae in Epistolas ad Romanos et Galatas. 8°, Hag. Com. 1678.

MORISON (James), D.D. Prof. Theol. to the Evangelical Union, Glasgow: An exposition of the Ninth chapter of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans 8°, Kilmarnock, 1849. And A critical exposition of the Third chapter … 8°, Lond. 1866.

MORUS (Samuel Friedrich Nathanael), (119) 1792, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig: Praelectiones in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos. Cum ejusdem versione Latina, locorumque quorundam N. T. difficiliorum interpretatione. Ed. J. T. S. Holzapfel. 8°, Lips. 1794.

MUSCULUS [or MEUSSLIN] (Wolfgang), (120) 1563, Prof. Theol. in Berne: In Epistolam ad Romanos commentarius. 2°, Basil. 1555 al(121)

NIELSEN (Rasmus), Prof. Theol. at Copenhagen: Der Brief Pauli an die Römer entwickelt … 8°, Leip. 1843.

OECUMENIUS, c(123) 980, Bishop of Tricca: Commentaria in Acta Apostolorum, in omnes Pauli Epistolas, in Epistolas catholicas omnes … 2°, Veronae, 1532 al(124)

(123) . circa

OLTRAMARE (Hugues), Minister at Geneva: Commentaire sur l’Epître aux Romains. [I

V. 11.] 8°, Genève, 1843.

ORIGENES, (125) 254, Catechete at Alexandria: Fragmenta in Epistolas Pauli. [Opera.]

OSORIO (Jeronymo), (126) 1580, Bishop of Sylvas: In Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos libri quatuor. [Opera.] 2°, Romae, 1592.

PAREUS [or WAENGLER] (David), (127) 1622, Prof. Theol. at Heidelberg: Commentarius in Epistolam ad Romans 4°, Francof. 1608 al(128)

PEILE (Thomas Williamson), D.D., Vicar of Luton: Annotations on the apostolical Epistles, designed chiefly for the use of students of the Greek text. 8°, Lond. 1848–52.

PELAGIUS, c(130) 420, British monk: Commentarii in Epistolas S. Pauli. [Hieronymi Opera.]

PHILIPPI (Friedrich Adolph), Prof. Theol. at Rostock: Commentar über den Brief an die Römer. 8°, Erlangen and Frankf. 1848–52.

PICQUIGNY (Bernardin) [BERNARDINUS A PICONIO], Cistercian monk: Epistolarum Pauli triplex expositio, cum analysi, paraphrasi et commentariis. 2°, Paris, 1703.

POLITI (Lanzelotto) [AMBROGIO CATARINO], (131) 1553, Archbishop of Conza: Commentarius in omnes divi Pauli et alias septem canonicas Epistolas. 2°, Romae, 1546 al(132)

POSSELT (August), c(133) 1715, Pastor at Zittau: Richtige Erklärung der Epistel Pauli an die Römer … 4°, Zittau, 1696.

PRIMASIUS, c(134) 550, Bishop of Adrumetum: Commentaria in Epistolas Pauli. [Bibl. Max. Patrum. X.]

PRZIPZCOV OR PRZYPKOWSKY (Samuel), (135) 1670, Socinian teacher: Cogitationes sacrae ad omnes Epistolas apostolicas. 2°, Eleutheropoli [Amstel.], 1692.

PURDUE (Edward), M.A.: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, with a revised translation. 8°, Dubl. 1855.

PYLE (Thomas), D.D., (136) 1756, Vicar of Lynn: A Paraphrase, with some notes on the Acts of the Apostles and on all the Epistles of the New Testament. 8°, Lond. 1725 al(137)

RABANUS MAURUS, (139) 856, Archbishop of Mentz: Enarrationum in Epistolas B. Pauli libri triginta. [Opera.]

Introductio historico-theologica in Ep. P. ad Romanos, cum Martini Lutheri Praefatione variis observationibus exegeticis illustrata. 8°, Halae, 1727.

REICHE (Johann Georg), Prof. Theol. in Göttingen: Versuch einer ausführlichen Erklärung des Briefes Pauli an die Römer, mit historischen Einleitung und exegetisch-dogmatischen Excursen. 8°, Götting. 1833–4.

Commentarius criticus in Novum Testamentum, quo loca graviora et difficiliora lectionis dubiae accurate recensentur et explicantur. Tom I.

III. Epistolas Paulinas et catholicas continentes. 4° et 8°, Götting. 1853–62.

REMIGIUS (of Auxerre), (142) 899. See HAYMO.

ROLLOCK (Robert), (143) 1598, Principal of the University of Edinburgh Analysis dialectica in Pauli apostoli Epistolam ad Romanos … 8°, Edin. 1594 al(144)

RÜCKERT (Leopold Immanuel), c(145) 1845, Prof. Theol. at Jena; Commentar über den Brief an die Römer. 8°, Leip. 1831.

SADOLETO (Jacopo), (146) 1547, Cardinal: Commentarius in Epistolam ad Romans 8°, Venet. 1536 al(147)

SCHLICHTING (Jonas), (149) 1664. See CRELL (Johann).

SCHMID (Sebastian), (150) 1696, Prof. Theol. at Strassburg: Commentarii in Epistolas Pauli ad Romanos, Galatas et Colossenses, una cum paraphrasi epistolae prioris ad Corinthios, utriusque ad Thessalonicenses, prioris ad Timotheum, epistolae ad Philemonem et cantici Mariae. [Previously issued separately.] 4°, Hamb. 1704.

SCHMID (Christian Friedrich), (151) 1778, Prof. Theol. at Wittenberg: Annotationes in Epistolam Pauli ad Eomanos, philologicae, theologicae et criticae. 8°, Lips. 1777.

SCHOTT (Theodor): Der Römerbrief seinem Endzweck und seinem Gedankengang nach ausgelegt. 8°, Erlangen, 1858.

SEDULIUS Scotus Hiberniensis, c(152) 800?: In omnes S. Pauli epistolas collectaneum. 2°, Basil. 1528.

SEMLER (Johann Salomon), (153) 1791, Prof. Theol. at Halle: Paraphrasis Epistolae Pauli ad Romanos cum notis et translatione vetusta. 8°, Halis, 1769.

SELNECCER (Nicolaus), (154) 1592, Prof. Theol. in Leipzig: In omnes Epistolas Pauli apostoli commentarius plenissimus. 2°, Lips. 1595.

SHUTTLEWORTH (Philip Nicholas), D.D., Bishop of Chichester: A Paraphrastic translation of the apostolical Epistles, with notes. 8°, Oxf. 1829 al(155)

SLADE (James), (156) 1860, Rector of West Kirby: Annotations on the Epistles; being a continuation of Mr. Elsley’s Annotations. 8°, Lond. 1824 al(157)

SOTO (Domingo de), (158) 1560, Prof. Theol. at Salamanca: Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Romans 2°, Antverp. 1550.

SPENER (Philipp Jakob), (159) 1705, Provost at Berlin: Auslegung des Briefes an die Römer aufs neue herausg. von H. Schott. 8°, Leip. 1859 al(160)

STEINHOFER (Friedrich Christoph), (161) 1761: Erklärung des Epistel Pauli an die Römer; mit einem Vorwort von J. T. Beck. 8°, Tübing. 1851.

STENGEL (Liborius), (162) 1835, R. C. Prof. Theol. at Freiburg: Commentar über den Brief des Paulus an die Römer … 8°, Freiburg, 1836.

STENERSEN (Stener Johannes), (163) 1835, Prof. of Church History at Christiania: Epistolae Paulinae perpetuo commentario illistratae. Vol. I. Ep. ad Voll. II. III. Epp. ad Corinth. IV. Ep. ad Galat. 8°, Christiania, 1829–34.

STUART (Moses), (164) 1852, Prof. of Sacred Literature at Andover: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, with a translation and various excursus … 8°, Andover, 1832 al(165)

TAYLOR (John), D.D., (166) 1761, Minister at Norwich: A Paraphrase with notes on the Epistle to the Romans: to which is prefixed a Key to the apostolic writings. 4°, Lond. 1745 al(167)

TERROT (Charles Hughes), D.D., Bishop, Edinburgh: The Epistle to the Romans, with an introduction, paraphrase and notes. 8°, Lond. 1828.

THEODORETUS, (168) c(169) 458, Bishop of Cyrus: Commentarius in omnes Pauli Epistolas. [Opera, et] 2°, Lond. 1636.

THEODORUS, (170) 429, Bishop of Mopsuestia: Commentarii in Epistolas Pauli. [Fragments in the Catenae, collected by Fritzsche: Theodori Mops. Commentaria in N. T. 1847. From Galatians to Philemon, in a Latin translation, incorporated in Rabanus Maurus.]

THEOPHYLACTUS, c(171) 1070, archbishop of Acris in Bulgaria: In D. Pauli Epistolas commentarius Graece et Latine cura A. Lindselli … 2°, Lond. 1636 al(172)

(171) . circa

THOLUCK (Friedrich August Gottreu), Prof. Theol. at Halle: Auslegung des Briefes Pauli an die Römer, nebstfortlaufenden Auszügen aus den exegetischen Schriften der Kirchenväter und Reformatoren. 8°, Bed. 1824 al(173)

Translated by the Rev. Robert Menzies, D.D. 8°, Edin. 1842.

TIL (Salomon van), (174) 1713, Prof. Theol. at Leyden: De Sendbrieven van Paullus aan de Romeinen en Filippensen, ontleedt, verklaardt en betoogt. 4°, Haarlem, 1721.

Commentarius in quatuor Pauli Epistolas, nempe priorem ad Corinthios, Ephesios, Philippenses, ac Colossenses. 4°, Amstel. 1726.

TITELMANN (Franz), 1553, Provincial of Capuchins at Rome: Elucidatio in omnes Epistolas apostolicas. 8°, Antwerp, 1532 al(175)

TOLETUS [FRANCISCO DE TOLEDO], (176) 1596, S. J. Cardinal: Commentarius et annotationes in Epistolam Pauli ad Romans 4°, Romae, 1602 al(177)

TURNER (Samuel Hulbeart), D.D., (178) 1861, Prof. of Biblical Interpretation at New York: The Epistle to the Romans, in Greek and English. With an analysis and exegetical commentary. 8°, New York, 1853.

TURRETINI (Jean-Alphonse), (179) 1737, Prof. Theol. at Geneva: In Pauli ad Romanos Epistolae capita priora xi, praelectiones criticae, theologicae et concinnatoriae. 4°, Lausannae, 1741.

VAREN (August), (181) 1684, Prof. Theol. at Rostock: Paulus evangelista Romanorum succincta divinissimae … Epistolae ad Romanos analysi et exegesi repraesentatus. 8°, Hamb. 1696.

VAUGHAN (Charles John), D.D., Master of the Temple: St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, with notes. 8°, Camb. 1857.

Third edition, enlarged. 8°, Lond. and Camb. 1870.

VITRINGA (Kempe), (182) 1722, Prof. Theol. at Franeker: Verklaringe over de agt eerste capittelen van de Brief Paulli aan de Romeinen. 4°, Franek. 1729.

VORST (Koonrad), (183) 1629, Prof. Theol. at Leyden: Commentarius in omnes Epistolas apostolicas, exceptis secunda ad Timotheum, ad Titum, ad Philemonem et ad Ebraeos. 4°, Amstel. et Harder. 1631.

WEINGART (Johann Friedrieh), Pastor at Grossfahnern, Gotha: Commentarius perpetuus in Pauli Epistolam ad Romanos. [Et In decem Apostoli Pauli epistolas, quas vulgo dicunt epistolas minores.] 8°, Gothae, 1816.

WEINRICH (Georg), (185) 1629, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig: Commentarii in Epistolas Pauli. 4°, Lips. 1620.

WELLER (Jakob), (186) 1664, Chief Chaplain at Dresden: Adnotationes in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos … collectae opera Jo. Schindleri. 4°, Brunsvigae, 1654.

WILLET (Andrew), (187) 1621, Prebendary of Ely: Hexapla, that is, a sixfold commentarie upon the most divine Epistle … to the Romanes. 2°, Lond. 1620.

WILSON (Thomas), c(188) 1620, Minister at Canterbury: A Commentary on the most divine Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans 4°, Lond. 1614 al(189)

(188) . circa

WINZER (Julius Friedrich), (190) 1845, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig: Adnotationes ad loca quaedam Epistolae Pauli ad Romans 4°, Lips. 1835.

WITTICH (Christoph), (191) 1687, Prof. Theol. at Leyden: Investigate Epistolae ad Romanos … una cum paraphrasi. 4°, Lugd. Bat. 1685.

WOODHEAD (Abraham). See FELL (John).

ABBREVIATIONS

al., et al. = and others; and other passages; and other editions.

ad or in loc., refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

comp. = compare. “Comp. on Matthew 3:5” refers to Dr. Meyer’s own commentary on the passage. So also “See on Matthew 3:5.”

codd. = codices or manuscripts. The uncial manuscripts are denoted by the usual letters, the Sinaitic by א .

min. = codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

Rec. or Recepta = Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).

l. c. = loco citato or laudato.

ver. = verse, vers. = verses.

f. ff. = and following. Ver. 16 f. means verses 16 and 17. Ver 16 ff. means verses 16 and two or more following.

vss. = versions. These, when individually referred to, are marked by the usual abridged forms. E.g. Syr. = Peschito Syriac; Syr. p. = Philoxenian Syriac.

p. pp. = page, pages.

e. g. exempli gratia.

sc. = scilicet.

N. T. = New Testament. O. T. = Old Testament.

κ. τ. λ. = καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

The colon (:) is largely employed, as in the German, to mark the point at which a translation or paraphrase of a passage is introduced, or the transition to the statement of another’s opinions.

.… indicates that words are omitted.

The books of Scripture and of the Apocrypha are generally quoted by their usual English names and abbreviations. Ecclus. = Sirach 3 Ezra , 4 Esd. [or Esr.] = the books usually termed 1James , 2 d Esdras.

The classical authors are quoted in the usual abridged forms by book, chapter, etc. (as Xen. Anab. vi. 6, 12) or by the paging of the edition generally used for that purpose (as Plat. Pol. p. 291 B. of the edition of H. Stephanus). The names of the works quoted are printed in Italics. Roman numerals in small capitals are used to denote books or other internal divisions (as Thuc. iv.); Roman numerals in large capitals denote volumes (as Kühner, II.).

The references to Winer’s Grammar, given in brackets thus [E. T. 152], apply to the corresponding pages of Mr. Moulton’s English translation.

PREFACE

SPECIALLY WRITTEN BY THE AUTHOR FOR THE ENGLISH EDITION

I T cannot but be of great importance in the interests of a thorough, sure, and comprehensive knowledge, that the results of progressive effort and research in the wide domain of the sciences should be mutually exchanged and spread from people to people, and from tongue to tongue. In this way of a living fellowship of mind, penetrating to the farthest limits of civilisation, the various scientific peculiarities of national development and culture are necessarily more and more elevated into common property as regards their excellences, while their several defects and shortcomings are reciprocally compensated and supplied; and thus the honest efforts and labours of individuals, pressing forward in common towards a deeper and clearer knowledge, are at once encouraged by their mutual respect and stimulated by a generous rivalry. Especially, and in an eminent degree, does this hold true within the sphere devoted to the highest object of human effort—the sphere of scientific theology. To the cultivation of this science, in accordance with its healthy life springing from the Divine Word and with its destination embracing time and eternity, belongs in an eminent sense the noble vocation of applying every gift received from God freely and faithfully to the service of the great whole—the building up of His kingdom. In its view the nations with their various characteristic powers, capacities, and tongues, are members of the one body, to which they are to hail each other as belonging in the fellowship of the one Head, which is Christ, and of the one Spirit, whose motions and influences are not restrained by any limits of nation or of language.

From this point of view it cannot but be in every sense a matter for congratulation that in our day more than formerly those literary works of German theology, which have on their native soil obtained a fair position in the literature of the science to which they relate, should by translation into the English tongue have that more extended field opened up to them, whose only limit is the ever-increasing diffusion and prevalence of that language in both hemispheres. Thus German theological labour goes forth into the wide world; becomes at home in distant lands and in a foreign dress; communicates what has been given to it, in order, by the mutual working of the Spirit, to receive in its turn from abroad; stimulates so far as in it lies, in order that it may itself find stimulus and furtherance, instruction and correction; and in all this lends its aid, that the divided theological strivings of the age and the various tendencies of religious national character may be daily brought closer together, and united in the eternal focus of all genuine science, which is truth and nothing but truth—and in the realm of theology the highest truth of all, that of divine revelation.

In the transplanting of the literary products of German theology to the soil of the English language the well-known publishing house of the Messrs. T. & T. Clark of Edinburgh have earned special distinction; and their efforts, supported by select and able professional scholars, have already found, and continue increasingly to find, an appreciation corresponding to their merits both in British and American circles. I have therefore readily and willingly given my consent to the proposal of the above-mentioned honourable publishers to set on foot and to issue an English translation of my Commentary on the New Testament; and with no less readiness have my esteemed German publishers, Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht in Göttingen, declared their agreement to it. I earnestly wish that the version thus undertaken, the first portion of which is given to the public in the present volume, may not fail to receive, in the field of the English language and of the science which it represents, an indulgent and kindly reception, such as, during a long series of years, has been accorded to the German work by the German theological public. And if I venture to couple with this wish some measure of a hope corresponding to it, I am induced to do so simply by the fact that even in the German idiom these works have already found their way, in no inconsiderable numbers, both to England and America.

Respecting the object and intention of my Commentaries no special explanation is needed, since, in point of fact, these are obvious on the face of them. They aim at exactly ascertaining and establishing on due grounds the purely historical sense of Scripture. This aim is so clear and so lofty, that all the produce of one’s own thoughts and subjective speculation must fall entirely into the background, and must not be allowed to mix up anything of its own with what objectively stands forth in the revelation of the New Testament and simply seeks to be understood just as it so stands. For exegesis is a historical science, because the sense of Scripture, the investigation of which is its task, can only be regarded and treated as a historical fact; as positively given, it can only be known, proved, established, and set forth so as to be clearly and surely understood, by the positive method of studying the grammar, the usus loquendi, and the connection in detail as well as in its wider and widest sense. Exegetical research therefore cannot regard any definitions of the doctrinal system of a Church as binding or regulative for its operations, as if forsooth, in cases where the Confession has spoken, its duty were to seek only what it was à priori directed to seek, and thereupon to find only what it so seeks. No! it is just when perfectly unprejudiced, impartial, and free—and thus all the more consciously and consistently guided simply and solely by those historically given factors of its science—that it is able with genuine humility to render to the church, so far as the latter maintains its palladium in the pure Word of God, real and wholesome service for the present and the future. Unhappily the Church of Rome, by its unchangeable tradition beyond the pale of Scripture, and now completely by its Vaticanum, has refused to receive such service in all points affecting its peculiar doctrine. But with the Evangelical Church it is otherwise. However deep may be the heavings of conflicting elements within it, and however long may be the duration of the painful throes which shall at last issue—according to the counsel of God and when His hour has come—in a happier time for the church when men’s minds shall have attained a higher union, the pure word of Scripture, in its historical truth and clearness and in its world-subduing divine might, disengaged from every addition of human scholasticism and its dividing formulae, must and shall at length become once more a wonderful power of peace unto unity of faith and love. The Evangelical Church bears inalienably in its bosom the Word as the living and imperishable leaven of that final development.

Such is the ideal goal, which the scientific exposition of Scripture, while it desires nothing else than to elucidate and further the true historical understanding of Scripture, may never lose sight of in regard to the church, which is built on the “Word. But how limited is the measure of the attainments and of the gifts conferred upon the individual! and how irresistibly must it impel him, in the consciousness of his fragmentary contributions, to the humbling confession, “Not as though I had already attained!” Nevertheless let each strive faithfully and honestly, according to what has been given to him, for that noble goal in the field of Scripture-science, in firm assurance that God can bless even what is little and be mighty in what is weak. And so may the gracious God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ accompany my humble labours on His Word, as they are now going forth in the dress of another language to far distant brethren, with the blessing on which all success depends, that they may conduce to the knowledge of His Truth, to the service of His Church, and to the glory of His Holy Name.

DR. HEIN. AUG. WILH. MEYER,

OBERCONSISTORIALRATH.

HANNOVER, March 1873.

PREFACE

TO THE GERMAN EDITION

F ORTY years have now elapsed since my Commentaries on the New Testament were first given to the public. The first edition of the first volume—the weak commencement—appeared in January 1832. A scientific work, which has passed through a long course of development and still continues that course, has always a history—a biography—of its own, which of course is intimately interwoven with that of its author. Yet in this retrospect I can only be filled with praise and thanksgiving to the divine grace; of myself I have nothing to say. The indulgence of friendly readers, which I have experienced so long, will not, I hope, fail to be still extended to me, when my day’s work is drawing to its end.

This fifth edition of the Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans is based—as was of course to be expected, and may be inferred from the increase in the number of the sheets—on a new and careful revision of the fourth edition, which was issued in 1865. This enlargement—although in particular instances much has been abridged or even deleted—could not be avoided, if on the one hand the more recent publications relating to the Epistle were to meet with due attention,(193) and if on the other hand the general plan of the book—according to which it has to provide along with the exposition itself a critical view of the interpretations contrasting with it, and so of the detailed history of the exegesis—was to be preserved.

But on what portion of the New Testament could the labour and trouble—which are being continually renewed, wherever exegetical science conscientiously strives to reach its pure and clear historic aim—be less spared than on this, the grandest and richest in contents of all the Apostle’s letters? Especially at the present time. The Epistle to the Romans still stands forth as a never silent accuser confronting the Roman ecclesiasticism, which has strained to the uttermost spiritual arrogance in the dethroned head, and Loyolist submissiveness in the members, of its hierarchy (perinde ac si essent cadavera); it is still the steadfast divine charter of the Reformation, as formerly our Luther found mainly in it the unyielding fulcrum by the aid of which he upheaved the firmly-knit Roman structure from its old foundations. Amidst the vehement and pretentious conflicts, which continually surround us in the field of evangelic belief, we still have in this Epistle—just because it sets clearly before us the pure apostolic Gospel in its deepest and most comprehensive scope—the clearest and most prominent criterion for the recognition of what belongs to the pith and marrow of the Confession, in order that we may distinguish with steadfast eye and conscience that which is essential from all the fleeting, temporary, controversial or scholastic forms, with which it has become connected and interwoven through the historical relations of ecclesiastical symbols; a distinction, to which even the Introduction to the Formula Concordiae, although this most of all bears the theological impress of the time, significantly enough points, and which better meets the exigencies of the restless present than the overbearing cry—recklessly transcending limit or measure—after unity of doctrine, which yet does not remove or even so much as conceal the dissensions among the criers themselves. The unity which they desire—were it uniformly established, as it were in the lump, for all doctrinal definitions of the Confession—would be Roman, and the very negation of truth and truthfulness in the church, because it would be contrary to the freedom of conscience in the understanding of Scripture, which has its ground and support, its standard and limit, and the holy warrant of its upright confidence, not beyond the pale of Scripture, but in it, and in it alone.

Let us only advance with clearness along the straight path of pure historical exegesis, in virtue of which we have always to receive what Scripture gives to us, and never to give to it aught of our own. Otherwise we run a risk of falling into the boundless maze of an interpretation of Scripture at our own pleasure, in which artificial and violent expedients are quickly enough resorted to, with a view to establish results which are constructed from foregone premisses, and to procure doctrines which are the creations—obtruded on Scripture—of a self-made world of thought and its combinations. Exegetes of this sort—whose labours, we may add, are usually facilitated by a lack of sure and thorough philological culture,(194) and of needful respect for linguistic authorities—have the dubious merit of provoking refutation more than others do, and thereby indirectly promoting the elucidation of the true sense of Scripture. Yet they may, as experience shows, attain for a time an influence, especially over younger theologians who have not yet reached the steadiness and soberness of mature exegetic judgment, by the charm of novelty and of a certain originality, as well as of a dialectic art, which veils its mistakes so that they are not at once recognised—an influence under which good abilities are misled and learn to be content with extracting from the words of Scripture a meaning, which, originating from their own presuppositions, belongs really to themselves. Indeed, if such a mode of handling Scripture, with its self-deceptions and with its often very singular caprices, could become dominant (which, looking to the present state and progress of science, I do not reckon possible), there would be reason to fear that gradually the principle of Scripture authority, which preserved in its full objectivity is the aegis of the evangelical churches, would become illusory. All the worse and more confusing is it, when such an exegesis employs as the organ of presenting and communicating its views a mode of expression, the quaint drapery of which hinders us from clearly discerning the substance of the meaning lying beneath it, and in fact frequently permits the effort of translating it into current forms of speech which cannot mislead to be attended with but dubious success.(195)

νοῦν ὑποκεῖσθαι δεῖ τοῖς γράμμασι καὶ φράσιν αὐτῶν εἶναι κοινοτέραν, ὥστε νοεῖν λέγεις.

For the critical remarks the part of the editio octava of Tischendorf’s New Testament, which includes the present Epistle, was in good time to be turned to account. As it deviates in many cases from the editio septima, and this diversity is partly due to a modification of the critical principles adopted, I have deemed it advisable to specify not merely the readings of the octava, but also those of the septima. The one I have indicated by Tisch. (8), the other by Tisch. (7); but where the two editions agree, I put merely Tisch.

With confidence then in God, who sits as Ruler and knows how to guide all things well, this work is left to make its way once more into the much agitated theological world. May He ward off harm, so far as it contains what is erroneous, and grant His blessing, so far as it may minister to the correct, unstinted, and undisguised understanding of His revealed Word.

DR. MEYER.

HANNOVER, 24th July 1872.

THE

EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS

INTRODUCTION

§ 1. SKETCH OF THE APOSTLE’S LIFE

P AUL, who received this Roman name, according to Jerome, Catal. 5—and from Acts 13:9, this view seems the most probable(196)—on occasion of the conversion of Sergius Paulus the Roman Proconsul of Cyprus, but was at his circumcision named שָׁארּל, ), down to Umbreit’s play on the word פָצרּל (the made one, created anew) in the Stud. u. Krit. 1852, p. 377 f., and Lange’s fancy that the Apostle was called the little, because he overcame Elymas as the little David overcame Goliath.">(197) was the son of Jewish parents belonging to the tribe of Benjamin (Romans 11:1; Philippians 3:5), and was born at Tarsus(198) (Acts 9:11; Acts 21:39; Acts 22:3), a πόλις μεγάλη καὶ εὐδαίμων (Xen. Anab. i. 2, 23) of ancient renown, founded according to the legend by Perseus, in Cilicia. The year of his birth is quite uncertain (A.D. 10–15?); but it is certain that he was of Pharisaic descent (see on Acts 23:6), and that his father was a Roman citizen (see on Acts 16:37). He therefore possessed by birth this right of citizenship, which subsequently had so important a bearing on his labours and his fate (Acts 22:27 f.). Of his first youthful training in his native city, where arts and sciences flourished (Strabo, xiv. 5, 13, p. 673), we know nothing; but it was probably conducted by his Pharisaic father in entire accordance with Pharisaic principles (Philippians 3:5; Galatians 1:14), so that the boy was prepared for a Pharisaic rabbinical school at Jerusalem. While yet in early youth (Acts 22:3; Acts 26:4, comp Acts 7:58; Galatians 1:14; Tholuck, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1835, p. 364 ff.; also in his Vermischte Schr. II. p. 274 ff.) he was transferred to Jerusalem, where he had perhaps even then relatives (Acts 23:16), though there is no evidence that the entire family migrated thither (Ewald). He entered a training-school of Pharisaic theology, and became a rabbinic pupil of the universally honoured (Acts 5:34) Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), who, notwithstanding his strict orthodoxy (Lightfoot, ad Matth. p. 33), shows himself (Acts 5:34 ff.) a man of wise moderation of judgment.(200) In accordance with a custom, which was rendered necessary by the absence of any regular payment of the Rabbins and was very salutary for their independence (see on Mark 6:3, and Delitzsch, Handwerkerleben zur Zeit Jesu, 1868, V.), the youthful Saul combined with his rabbinical culture the learning of a trade—tentmaking (Acts 18:3)—to which he subsequently, even when an apostle, applied himself in a way highly honourable and remarkably conducive to the blessing of his official labours, and for that reason he felt a just satisfaction in it (Acts 18:3; Acts 20:34; 1 Thessalonians 2:9; 2 Thessalonians 3:7 ff.; 1 Corinthians 4:12; 1 Corinthians 9:6; 1 Corinthians 12:15; 2 Corinthians 11:8; 2 Corinthians 12:13). At the feet of Gamaliel he of course received an instruction which, as to form and matter, was purely rabbinic; and hence his epistles exhibit, in the mode in which they unfold their teaching, a more or less distinct rabbinico-didactic impress. But it was natural also that his susceptible and active mind should not remain unaffected by Hellenic culture, when he came into contact with it; and how could he escape such contact in Jerusalem, whither Hellenists flocked from all quarters under heaven? This serves to explain a dilettante(201) acquaintance on his part with Greek literary works, which may certainly be recognized in Acts 17:28, if not also in 1 Corinthians 15:33 (Titus 1:12); and which, perhaps already begun in Tarsus, may have been furthered without its being sought by his subsequent relations of intercourse with Greeks of all countries and of all ranks. It is impossible to determine how much or how little of the virtues of his character, and of the acuteness, subtlety, and depth of lofty intellect which he displayed as apostle, he owed to the influence of Gamaliel; for his conversion had as its result so entire a change in his nature, that we cannot distinguish—and we should not attempt to distinguish—what elements of it may have grown out of the training of his youth, or to what extent they have done so. We can only recognize this much in general, that Saul, with excellent natural gifts, with the power of an acute intellect, lively feelings, and strong will, was, under the guidance of his teacher, not merely equipped with Jewish theological knowledge and dialectic art, but had his mind also directed with lofty national enthusiasm towards divine things; and that, however deeply he felt sin to be the sting of death (Romans 7:7 ff.), he was kept free (Philippians 3:6) from the hypocritical depravity which was at that time prevalent among Pharisees of the ordinary type (Schrader, II. p. 23 ff.; comp also Keim, Gesch. Jesu, I. p. 265). Nevertheless it is also certain that the moderation and mildness of the teacher did not communicate themselves to the character of the disciple, who, on the contrary, imbibed in a high degree that prevailing rigour of Pharisaism, the spirit of which no Gamaliel could by his individual practical wisdom exorcise. He became a distinguished zealot for the honour of Jehovah and the law (Acts 22:3), as well as for Pharisaic principles (Galatians 1:14), and displayed all the recklessness and violence which are wont to appear, when fiery youthful spirits concentrate all their energies on the pursuit of an idea embraced with thorough enthusiasm. His zeal was fed with abundant fuel and more and more violently inflamed, when the young Christian party growing up in Jerusalem became an object of hostility as dangerously antagonistic to the theocracy and legal orthodoxy (comp Acts 6:13-14), and at length formal persecution broke out with the stoning of Stephen. Even on that occasion Saul, although still in a very subordinate capacity, as merely a youth in attendance,(204) took a willing and active part (Acts 8:1; Acts 22:20); but soon afterwards he came forward on his own account as a persecutor of the Christians, and, becoming far and wide a terror to the churches of Judaea (Galatians 1:22 f.), he raged against the Christians with a violence so resolute and persistent (Acts 22:3 f., Acts 26:10 ff.), that his conduct at this time caused him ever afterwards the deepest humiliation and remorse (1 Corinthians 15:8-9; Galatians 1:13; Ephesians 3:8; Philippians 3:6; comp 1 Timothy 1:13). Yet precisely such a character as Saul—who, full of a keen but for the time misdirected love of truth and piety, devoted without selfish calculation his whole energies to the idea which he had once embraced as his highest and holiest concernment—was, in the purpose of God, to become the chief instrument for the proclamation and extension of the divine work, of which he was still for the moment the destructive adversary. A transformation so extraordinary required extraordinary means. Accordingly when Saul, invested with full powers by the Sanhedrin (Acts 9:1; Acts 26:9), was carrying his zealous labours beyond the bounds of Palestine, there took place near Damascus (35 A.D.) that wonderful appearance to him of the exalted Jesus in heavenly glory (see on Acts 9:3; 1 Corinthians 9:1; 1 Corinthians 15:8) which arrested him (Philippians 3:12), and produced no less a result than that Saul—thereby divinely called, and subsequently favoured with an inward divine revelation of the Son of God(206) (see on Galatians 1:15 f.)—gradually became, under the further guidance of the divine Spirit and in the school of his own experiences so full of trial, the Apostle, who by the most extensive and most successful proclamation of the Gospel, especially among the Gentiles, and by his triumphant liberation of that Gospel from the fetters of Mosaism on the one hand and from the disturbing influences of the current theosophic speculations on the other, did more than all the other apostles—he, the Thirteenth, more than the Twelve, who had been called in the first instance for the δωδεκαφύλον of Israel (Galatians 2:9; 1 Corinthians 15:10). His conversion was completed through Ananias, who was directed to him by means of an appearance of Christ (Acts 9:10 ff); and, having been baptized, he at once after a few days, in the resolute consciousness of his spiritual life transformed with a view to his apostolic vocation (Galatians 1:16), preached in the synagogues of Damascus Jesus(207) as being the Son of God (Acts 10:19 f.). For all half-heartedness was foreign to him; now too he was, whatever he was, thoroughly, and this energetic unity of his profound nature was now sanctified throughout by the living spirit of Christ. His apostolic labours at Damascus, the birthplace of his regenerate life, lasted three years, interrupted however by a journey to Arabia (Galatians 1:17), the object of which most probably was to make merely a preliminary and brief trial of his ministry in a foreign field.(208)

Persecution on the part of the Jews—which was subsequently so often, according to the Divine counsel, the salutary means of extending the sphere of the Apostle’s labours—compels him to escape from Damascus (Acts 9:19-26; 2 Corinthians 11:32 f.); and he betakes himself to the mother-church of the faith on account of which he has suffered persecution in a foreign land, proceeding to Jerusalem (A.D. 38), in order to make the personal acquaintance of Peter (Galatians 1:18). At first regarded by the believers there with distrust, he was, through the loving intervention of Barnabas (Acts 9:27 f.), admitted into the relation of a colleague to the apostles, of whom, however, only Peter and James the brother of the Lord were present (Galatians 1:19). His first apostolic working at Jerusalem was not to last more than fifteen days (Galatians 1:18); already had the Lord by an appearance in the temple (Acts 22:17 ff.) directed him to depart to the Gentiles; already were the Hellenists resident in the city seeking his life; and he therefore withdrew through Syria to his native place (Acts 9:30; Galatians 1:20). Here he seems to have lived and worked wholly in quiet retirement, till at length Barnabas, who had appreciated the greatness and importance of the extraordinary man, went from Antioch, where just at that time Gentile Christianity had established its first church, to seek him out at Tarsus, and brought him thence to the capital of Syria; where both devoted themselves for a whole year (A.D. 43) without interruption to the preaching of the Gospel (Acts 11:25-26). We know not whether it was during this period (see Anger, temp. rat. p. 104 ff.), or during his sojourn in Cilicia (see Ewald, apost. Zeit. p. 440, ed. 3), that the Apostle became the subject of that spiritual ecstasy and revelation which, even after the lapse of fourteen years, continued to be regarded by him as so extremely remarkable (2 Corinthians 12:2-4).

But the great famine was now approaching, which, foretold at Antioch by the prophet Agabus from Jerusalem, threatened destruction to the churches of Judaea. On this account the brethren at Antioch, quite in the spirit of their new brotherly love, resolved to forward pecuniary aid to Judaea; and entrusted its transmission to Barnabas and Saul (Acts 11:27-30). After the execution of this commission (A.D. 44), in carrying out which however Saul at least cannot have gone all the way to Jerusalem (see on Galatians 2:1), the two men were formally and solemnly consecrated by the church at Antioch as apostles to the Gentiles (Acts 13:1-3); and Saul now undertook—at first with, but afterwards without, Barnabas—his missionary journeys so fruitful in results. In the course of these journeys he was wont, where there were Jews, to attempt the fulfilment of his office in the first instance among them, in accordance with what he knew to be the divine order (Romans 1:16; Romans 15:8 ff.), and with his own deep love towards his nation (Romans 9:1 ff.); but when, as was usually the case, he was rejected by the Jews, he displayed the light of Christ before the Gentiles. And in all variety of circumstances he exhibited a vigour and versatility of intellect, an acuteness and depth, clearness and consistency, of thought, a purity and steadfastness of purpose, an ardour of disposition, an enthusiasm of effort, a wisdom of conduct, a firmness and delicacy of practical tact, a strength and freedom of faith, a fervour and skill of eloquence, a heroic courage amidst dangers, a love, self-denial, patience, and humility, and along with all this a lofty power of gifted genius, which secure for the Saul whom Christ made His chosen instrument the reverence and admiration of all time.(209)

In accordance with the narrative of Acts, three(210) missionary journeys of the Apostle may be distinguished; and in the description of these we may insert the remaining known facts of his history.

(1.) On his consecration as Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul went along with Barnabas the Cyprian, and with Mark accompanying them as apostolic servant, first of all to the neighbouring Cyprus; where, after his advance from Salamis to Paphos, his work was crowned by a double success—the humiliation of the goetes Elymas, and the conversion of the proconsul Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:6-12). Then Pamphylia, where Mark parted from the apostles (Acts 13:13), Pisidia and Lycaonia became in turn fields of his activity, in which, together with Barnabas, he founded churches and organized them by the appointment of presbyters (Acts 14:23). At one time receiving divine honours on account of a miracle (Acts 14:11 ff.), at another persecuted and stoned (Acts 13:50, Romans 14:5; Romans 14:19), he, after coming down from Perga to Attalia, returned to the mother-church at Antioch.

While Paul and Barnabas were here enjoying a quiet sojourn of some duration among the brethren (Acts 14:28), there came down from Judaea Pharisaic Christians jealous for the law, who required the Gentile converts to submit to circumcision as a condition of Messianic salvation (Acts 15:1; Galatians 2:4). It was natural that this demand should encounter a decided opponent in the highly enlightened and liberal-minded Paul, whose lively assurance of the truth, resting on revelation and upheld by his own experience, could tolerate no other condition of salvation than faith in Christ; and in consequence both he and the likeminded Barnabas became entangled in no small controversy (Acts 15:2). The dispute involved the fundamental essence and independent standing of Christianity and the whole freedom of a Christian man, and was therefore of such importance that the church at Antioch, with a view to its settlement, deputed their most influential men, Paul, who also received a revelation for this purpose (Galatians 2:2), and Barnabas along with some others (Paul also took Titus with him, Galatians 2:1), to proceed to Jerusalem (fourteen years after the Apostle’s first journey thither, A.D. 52), and there discuss with the apostles and elders the points in dispute. And how happy was the result of this so-called Apostolic Council! Paul laid the Gospel which he preached to the Gentiles before the church, and the apostles in particular, with the best effect (Galatians 2:2; Galatians 2:6); and, as to the point of circumcision, not even his apostolic associate Titus, a Gentile, was subjected to the circumcision demanded by members of the church who were zealous for the law. With unyielding firmness Paul contended for the truth of the Gospel. The apostles who were present

James, the brother of the Lord, Peter and John—approved of his preaching among, and formally recognized him as Apostle to, the Gentiles (Galatians 2:1-10); and he and Barnabas, accompanied by the delegates of the church at Jerusalem, Judas Barsabas and Silas, returned to Antioch bearers of a decree (Acts 15:28-30) favourable to Christian freedom from the law, and important as a provisional measure for the further growth of the church (Acts 16:4 f.), though not coming up to that complete freedom of the Gospel which Paul felt himself bound to claim, and for this reason, as well as in virtue of his consciousness of independence as Apostle to the Gentiles, not urged by him in his Epistles. Here they prosecuted afresh their preaching of Christ, though not always without disturbance on the part of Jewish Christians, so that Paul was compelled in the interest of Christian freedom openly to oppose and to admonish even Peter, who had been carried away into dissimulation, especially seeing that the other Jewish Christians, and even Barnabas, had allowed themselves to be tainted by that dissimulation (Galatians 2:11 ff.). Paul had nevertheless the welfare of his foreign converts too much at heart to permit his wishing to prolong his stay in Antioch (Acts 15:36). He proposed to Barnabas a journey in which they should visit those converts, but fell into a dispute with him in consequence of the latter desiring to take Mark (Acts 15:37-39)—a dispute which had the beneficial consequence for the church, that the two men, each of whom was qualified to fill a distinct field of labour, parted from one another and never again worked in conjunction.

(2.) Paul, accompanied by Silas, entered on a second missionary journey (A.D. 52). He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the Christian life of the churches (Acts 15:41); and then through Lycaonia, where at Lystra (see on Acts 16:1) he associated with himself Timothy, whom he circumcised—apart however from any connection with the controversy as to the necessity of circumcision (see on Acts 16:3)—with a view to prevent his ministry from causing offence among the Jews. He also traversed Phrygia and Galatia (Acts 16:6), in the latter of which he was compelled by bodily weakness to make a stay, and so took occasion to plant the churches there (Galatians 4:13). When he arrived at Troas, he received in a vision by night a call from Christ to go to Macedonia (Romans 16:8 ff.). In obedience to this call he stepped for the first time on the soil of Europe, and caused Christianity to take permanent root in every place to which he carried his ministry. For in Macedonia he laid the foundation of the churches at Philippi, Thessalonica, and Beroea (Acts 16:12 ff., Acts 17:1 ff., Acts 17:10 ff.); and then, driven away by repeated persecutions (comp also 1 Thessalonians 2:1 f., Romans 1:6)—but leaving Silas and Timothy behind in Beroea (Acts 17:14)—he brought to Christ His first-fruits even in Athens, where he was treated by the philosophers partly with contempt and partly with ridicule (Acts 17:16 ff.). But in that city, whence he despatched Timothy, who had in the meanwhile again rejoined him, to Thessalonica (1 Thessalonians 3:1 ff.), he was unable to found a church. The longer and more productive was his labour in Corinth, whither he betook himself on leaving Athens (Acts 18:1 ff.). There, where Silas and Timothy soon joined him, he founded the church which Apollos afterwards watered (1 Corinthians 3:6; 1 Corinthians 3:10; 1 Corinthians 4:15; 1 Corinthians 9:1); and for more than a year and a half (Acts 18:11; Acts 18:18; A.D. 53 and 54)—during which period he received support from Macedonia (2 Corinthians 11:9), as he had previously on several occasions from the Philippians (Philippians 4:15 f.)—overcame the wisdom of the world by the preaching of the Crucified One (1 Corinthians 2:1 ff.). The relation here formed with his fellow-craftsman Aquila (Acts 18:1 ff.), who as a Roman emigrant was sojourning with his wife Priscilla in Corinth, could not fail to exercise essential influence on the Christian church at Rome (Romans 16:3). In Corinth he wrote also at this time the first of his doctrinal Epistles preserved to us—those to the Thessalonians. Corinth was the terminus of his second missionary journey. From Corinth he started on his return, not however taking a direct course, but first making by way of Ephesus (whither he brought Aquila and Priscilla with him) a journey to Jerusalem to attend a festival (Acts 18:18-22; A.D. 55), whence, without prolonging his stay, he returned to the bosom of the Syrian mother-church. But he did not remain there long (Acts 18:23); his apostolic zeal soon impelled him to set out once more.

(3.) He made his third missionary tour through Galatia and Phrygia, strengthening the churches which he had founded from town to town (Acts 18:23); and traversed Asia Minor as far as Ephesus, where for nearly three years (A.D. 56–58) he laboured with peculiar power and fervour and with eminent success (Acts 19:1 to Acts 20:1), although also assailed by severe trials (Acts 20:19; 1 Corinthians 15:32, comp 2 Corinthians 1:8). This sojourn of the Apostle was also highly beneficial for other churches than that at Ephesus; for not only did he thence make a journey to Corinth, which city he now visited for the second time (see on 2 Cor. introd. § 2), but he also wrote towards the end of that sojourn what is known to us as the First Epistle to the Corinthians, receiving subsequently intelligence of the impression made by it from Timothy, whom he had sent to Corinth before he wrote, as well as from Titus, whom he had sent after writing it. The Epistle to the Galatians was also issued from Ephesus. He was impelled to leave this city by his steadfast resolution now to transfer his labours to the far West, and indeed to Rome itself, but before doing so to revisit and exhort to steadfastness in the faith his Macedonian and Achaean converts (Acts 19:21; Acts 20:2), as well as once more to go to Jerusalem (Acts 19:21). Accordingly, after Demetrius the silversmith had raised a tumult against him (Acts 19:24 ff.), which however proved fruitless, and after having suffered in Asia other severe afflictions (2 Corinthians 1:8), he travelled through Macedonia, whither he went by way of Troas (2 Corinthians 2:12), and where, after that in addition to Timothy Titus also from Corinth had joined him, he wrote the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. He then remained three months in Achaia (Acts 20:3), where he issued from Corinth—which he now visited for the third time (2 Corinthians 12:14; 2 Corinthians 13:1)—his Epistle to the Romans. Paul now regards his calling in the sphere of labour which he has hitherto occupied as fulfilled, and is impelled to pass beyond it (2 Corinthians 10:15 f.); he has preached the Gospel from Jerusalem as far as Illyria (Romans 15:19; Romans 15:23); he desires to go by way of Rome to Spain, as soon as he shall have conveyed to Jerusalem a collection gathered in Macedonia and Greece (Romans 15:23 ff.). But it does not escape his foreboding spirit that suffering and tribulation await him in Judaea (Romans 15:30 ff.).

The Apostle’s missionary labours may be regarded as closed with this last sojourn in Achaia; for he now entered on his return journey to Jerusalem, in consequence of which the capital of the world was to become the closing scene of his labours and sufferings. Hindered solely by Jewish plots from sailing directly from Achaia to Syria, he returned once more to Macedonia, and after Easter crossed from Philippi to Troas (Acts 20:3-6), where his companions, who had set out previously, awaited him. Coming thence to Miletus, he bade a last farewell with touching fervour and solemnity to the presbyters of his beloved church of Ephesus (Acts 20:17 ff.); for he was firmly convinced in his own mind, filled as it was by the Spirit, that he was going to meet bonds and afflictions (Acts 20:23). At Tyre he was warned by the Christians not to go up to Jerusalem (Acts 21:4); at Caesarea Agabus announced to him with prophetic precision the approaching loss of his freedom (Acts 21:10 ff.), and his friends sought with tears to move him even now to return; but nothing could in the least degree shake his determination to follow absolutely the impulse of the Spirit, which urged him towards Jerusalem (Acts 20:22). He went thither (A.D. 59) with heroic self-denial and yielding of himself to the divine purpose, in like manner as formerly the Lord Himself made His last pilgrimage to the Jewish capital. Arriving there shortly before Pentecost—for his object was not only to convey to the brethren the gifts of love collected for them, but also to celebrate the national festival, Acts 24:17—he was induced by James and the presbyters immediately on the following day to undertake, for the sake of the Judaists, a Nazarite vow (Acts 21:17 ff.). But, while it was yet only the fifth day of this consecration (see on Acts 24:11), the Asiatic Jews fell upon him in the temple, accusing him of having, as an enemy of the law and the temple, brought Gentiles with him into the holy place; and they would have killed him, had not the tribune of the fort Antonia rescued him by military force from their hands (Acts 21:28-34). In vain he defended himself before the people (Acts 22), and on the following day before the Sanhedrin (Acts 23:1-10); but equally in vain was a plot now formed by certain Jews who had bound themselves by an oath to put him to death (Acts 23:11-22); for the tribune, when informed of it, had the Apostle conducted immediately to the Procurator Felix at Caesarea (Acts 23:23-35). Felix was base enough, in spite of Paul’s excellent defence, to detain him as a prisoner for two years, in the expectation even of receiving a bribe; and on his departure from the province, from a wish to gratify the Jews, left the Apostle to be dealt with by Porcius Festus his successor (summer, A.D. 61), Acts 24. Even from the more equitable Festus, before whom the Jews renewed their accusations and Paul the defence of his innocence, he did not receive the justice that was his due; wherefore he found himself compelled to make a formal appeal to the Emperor (Acts 25:1-12). Before this date however, whilst living in the hope of a speedy release, he had written at Caesarea his Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon (which are usually assigned to the Roman captivity); see on Eph. introd. § 2. His appeal, notwithstanding the unanimously favourable opinions pronounced regarding him (Acts 26) after his solemn defence of himself before King Agrippa II. and his sister (Acts 25:13 ff.), was necessarily followed by his transference from Caesarea to Rome. During the autumn voyage, on which he was accompanied by Luke and Aristarchus, danger succeeded danger, after the Apostle’s wise warnings were despised (Acts 27:10-11; Acts 27:21); and it was only in consequence of his advice being afterwards followed (Acts 27:30-36) that all were saved and, after the stranding of their vessel at Malta, happily landed to pass the winter on that island. In the following spring he saw Rome, though not—as it had been so long his earnestly cherished wish to visit it (Romans 1:10 ff.)—as the free herald of the Gospel. Still he there enjoyed the favour—after receiving a custodia militaris—of being permitted to dwell in his own hired house and to continue without interruption his work of instruction among all who came to him. This mild imprisonment lasted two full years (from the spring of 62): and as at this time his intrepid fidelity to his office failed not to make oral proclamation of the kingdom of God (Acts 28:30-31; Philippians 1:12 ff.), so in particular the Epistle to the Philippians, which emanated from this time of captivity, is a touching proof of that fidelity, as well as of the love which he still received and showed, of the sufferings which he endured, and of the resignation and hope which alternated within him. This letter of love may be called his swan’s song. The two years’ duration of his further imprisonment did not decide his cause; and it does not make his release by any means self-evident,(213) for Luke reports nothing from this period respecting the progress of the Apostle’s trial. But now all at once we lose all trustworthy accounts bearing on the further course of his fate; and only thus much can be gathered from the testimonies of ecclesiastical writers as historically certain, that he died the death of a martyr at Rome under Nero, and nearly at the same time(214) as Peter suffered crucifixion at the same place. See the testimonies in Credner, Einl. I. p. 318 ff.; Kunze, praecip. Patrum testim., quae ad mort. P. spect., Gott. 1848; and generally Baur, Paulus, I. p. 243 ff. ed. 2; Wieseler, p. 547 ff.; Otto, Pastoralbr. p. 149 ff.; from the Catholic point of view, Döllinger, Christenth. und Kirche, p. 79 ff. ed. 2.

The question however arises, Whether this martyrdom (beheading) was the issue of his trial at that time (Petavius, Lardner, Schmidt, Eichhorn, Heinrichs, Wolf, de altera Pauli captivit. Lips. 1819, 1821, Schrader, Hemsen, Köllner, Winer, Fritzsche, Baur, Schenkel, de Wette, Matthies, Wieseler, Schaff, Ebrard, Thiersch, Reuss, Holtzmann, Judenth. u. Christenth. p. 549 f., Hausrath, Hilgenfeld, Otto, Volckmar, Krenkel, and others, including Rudow, Diss. de argumentis historic., quibus epistolar. pastoral. origo Paul. impugnata est, Gott. 1852, p. 6 ff.), or of a second Roman captivity, as has been assumed since Eusebius (Romans 2:22) by the majority of ancient and modern writers, including Michaelis, Pearson, Hänlein, Bertholdt, Hug, Heidenreich, Pastoralbr. II. p. 6 ff., Mynster, kl. theol. Schr. p. 291 f., Guericke, Böhl, Abfassungsz. d. Br. an Timoth. u. Tit., Berl. 1829, p. 91 ff., Köhler,(215) Wurm, Schott, Neander, Olshausen, Kling, Credner, Neudecker, Wiesinger, Baumgarten, Lange, apost. Zeitalt. II. i. p. 386 ff., Bleek, Döllinger, Sepp, Gams, d. Jahr d. Märtyrertodes d. Ap. Petr. u. Paul. 1867, Ewald, Huther and others. Since the testimony of Eusebius, l.c(216), which is quite of a general character, confessedly has reference merely to a tradition ( λόγος ἔχει), which was acceptable to him on account of 2 Timothy 4:16 f., the historical decision of this question turns on the statement of Clemens Romanus.(217) He says, according to Dressel’s text,(218) 1 Corinthians 5 : διὰ ζῆλον καὶ παῦλος ὑπομονῆς βραβεῖον ὑπέσχεν, ἑπτάκις δεσμὰ φορέσας, φυγαδευθεὶς, λιθασθεῖς. κῆρυξ γενόμενος ἔν τε τῇ ἀνατολῇ καὶ ἐν τῇ δύσει, τὸ γενναῖον τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ κλέος ἔλαβεν, δικαιοσύνην διδάξας ὅλον τὸν κόσμον, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως ἐλθών, καὶ μαρτυρήσας ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων. οὕτως ἀπηλλάγη τοῦ κόσμου, καὶ εἰς τὸν ἅγιον τόπον ἐπορεύθη, ὑπομονῆς γενόμενος μέγιστος ὑπογραμμός. This passage, it is thought, indicates clearly enough that Paul before his death, passing beyond Italy, had reached the farthest limit of the West, Spain,(219) and that therefore a second Roman imprisonment must be assumed. See especially Credner, Gesch. d. Kanon, p. 51 ff.; Huther, Pastoralbr. Einl. p. 32 ff. ed. 3; Lightfoot l.c(220), who understands by τέρμα τ. δ. Gades. In opposition to this view we need not seek after any different interpretation of τὸ τέρμα τ. δύσεως; whether it may be taken to signify the western limit appointed to Paul (Baur, Schenkel, Otto)—which certainly would be very meaningless—or the line of demarcation between East and West (Schrader, Hilgenfeld, apost. Väter, p. 109); or even the centre of the West (Matthies). But it is to be observed:—1st. that the language generally bears a highly rhetorical and hyperbolical character, and, were it only for this reason, it is very hazardous to interpret the “limit of the West” ( τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως) with geographical accuracy. And is not even the immediately preceding δικαιοσ. διδάξας ὅλον τὸν κόσ΄ον a flourish of exaggeration? 2d. Clement does not speak of East and West from his own Roman stand-point, but, as was most naturally accordant with the connection and design of his statement, from the standpoint of Paul, into whose local relations he in thought transports himself. While the Apostle laboured in Asia, he was in the East: then he passed over to Greece, and thus had become, from his Oriental point of view, a herald also in the West. But in the last crisis of his destiny he came even to the far West, as far as Rome: and for this idea how naturally, in the midst of the highly coloured language which he was using, did the expression ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως ἐλθών suggest itself! It could not have been misunderstood by the readers, because people at Corinth could not but know the place where Paul met his death. 3d. επὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων denotes (in allusion to Matthew 10:18) the rulers generally, before whom Paul gave testimony concerning Christ ( ΄αρτυρήσας), after he had reached this τέρ΄α τῆς δύσεως. If the latter denotes Rome, then we may without hesitation, on historical grounds, conclude that the rulers are those Roman magistrates before whom Paul made his defence in Rome. But if Spain should be the “goal of the West,” we should find ourselves carried by the μαρτυρήσας ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμ. to some scene of judicial procedure in Spain; and would it not in that case be necessary to assume a sojourn of the Apostle there, which that very trial would render specially memorable? But how opposed to such a view is the fact, that no historical trace, at all certain, is preserved of any church founded by Paul in Spain! For the testimonies to this effect adduced by Gams, Kirchengesch. v. Spanien, p. 26, Sepp, Gesch. der Ap. p. 314, ed. 2, and others, contain nothing but traditions, which have merely arisen from the hypothetical Spanish journey of Paul. And to say with Huther that the Apostle had travelled ( ἐλθών) to Spain, but had not laboured there, is to have recourse to an explanation at variance with the intrinsic character of Paul himself and with the context of Clement. Besides, according to Romans 15:23 f., Paul desired to transfer his ministry, that was accomplished in the East, to Spain. 4th. If ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τ. δύσεως ἐλθών was intended to transport the reader to Spain, then it would be most natural, since οὓτως sums up the previous participial clauses, to transfer the ἀπηλλάγη τοῦ κόσ΄ου also to Spain; for just as this ἀπηλλ. τ. κ. is manifestly correlative to the δικαιοσύνην διδάξ. ὅλον τ. κόσ΄ον, so εἰς τ. ἅγιον τόπον ἐπορεύθη corresponds with the ἐπὶ τ. τέρ΄α τ. δύσεως κ. τ. λ(221); so that Paul, starting from the τέρμα τ. δύσεως, which he has reached, and where he has borne his testimony before the rulers, enters on his journey to the holy place. It is only, therefore, when we understand Italy as the western limit, that the language of Clement is in harmony with the historical circumstances of the case.(222) See, moreover, Lipsius, de Clem. Rom. ep. ad Cor. I. p. 129, and Chronol. d. röm. Bischöfe, p. 163 ff. It cannot withal be overlooked that in the so-called Epist. Clem. a(223) Jacobum, c. 1, there is manifestly an echo of our passage, and yet Rome alone is designated as the final goal of the Apostle’s labours: τὸν ἐσόμενον ἀγαθὸν ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ μηνύσαι βασιλέα, μέχρις ἐνταῦθα τῇ ῥώμῃ γενόμενος, θεοβουλήτῳ διδασκαλίᾳ σώζων ἀνθρώπους, αὐτὸς τοῦ νῦν βίου βιαίως τὸ ζὴν μετήλλαξεν. After this the conjecture of Wieseler (and Schaff, Hist. of Apost. Church, p. 342), who, instead of ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα as given by Junius, would read ὑπο τὸ τέρμα, and explain it “before the supreme power of the West,” is unnecessary. It is decisive against this view that Jacobson, as well as Wotton, found ἐπὶ in the Cod. A, and that Tischendorf likewise has attested the existence of καὶ ἐπὶ as beyond doubt. But, besides, Wieseler’s expedient would not be admissible on grounds of linguistic usage, for τέρμα in the sense assumed is only used with ἔχειν; see Eur. Suppl. 617, Or. 1343, Jacobs. a(224) Del. epigr. p. 287. From the very corrupt text of the Canon Muratorii,(225) nothing can be gathered hearing on our question, except that the author was already acquainted with the tradition of the journey to Spain afterwards reported by Eusebius; not, that he wished to refute it (Wieseler, p. 536). On the other hand, Origen (in Euseb. iii. 1 : τί δεῖ περὶ παύλου λέγειν ἀπὸ ἱερουσαλὴμ μέχρι τοῦ ἰλλυρικοῦ πεπληρωκότος τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ χριστοῦ καὶ ὕστερον ἐν τῇ ῥώμη ἐπὶ νέρωνος μεμαρτυρηκότος) tacitly excludes the Spanish journey. The tradition regarding it arose very naturally out of Romans 15:24; (Jerome: “ad Italiam quoque et, ut ipse scribit, ad Hispanias—portatus est”), and served as a needed historical basis for the explanation of 2 Tim., acquiring the more general currency both on this account and because it tended to the glorification of the Apostle. It is further worthy of attention that the pseudo-Abdias, in his Historia Apostolica, ii. 7, 8 (in Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. p. 452 ff.), represents the execution as the issue of the captivity reported in the Acts. Had this author been a believer in a liberation, as well as in a renewed missionary activity and second imprisonment, he would have been the last to refrain from bringing forward wonderful reports regarding them. Substantially the same may be said of the Acta Petri et Pauli in Tischendorf, Act. ap. apocr. p. 1 ff.

Note.

If we regard the Epistles to Timothy and Titus—which, moreover, stand or fall together—as genuine, we must take, as Eusebius in particular has done with reference to 2 Tim., the tradition of the Apostle’s liberation from Rome and of a second captivity there as an historical postulate,(226) in order to gain the room which cannot otherwise be found for the historical references of those Epistles, and the latest possible time for their other contents. But the more defective the proof of the second imprisonment is, the more warranted remain the doubts as to the genuineness of these Epistles, which arise out of their own contents; while in virtue of these doubts the Epistles, in their turn, cannot themselves be suitably adduced in proof of that captivity. Besides, it cannot be left out of view that in all the unquestionably genuine Epistles which Paul wrote during his imprisonment every trace of the previously (Romans 15:24) cherished plan of a journey to Spain has vanished; and that in the Epistle to the Philippians, which was certainly not written till he was in Rome (Romans 1:25 f., Romans 2:24), he contemplates as his further goal in the event of his liberation, not the far West, but Macedonia, or in other words a return to the East. From Acts 23:11, however, no evidence can be adduced against the Spanish journey (as Otto contends), because in this passage there is no express mention of a last goal, excluding all further advance.

That the Christian Church in Rome had been in existence for a considerable time when Paul wrote to it, is clear from Romans 1:8-13 and Romans 13:11; Romans 13:14; and that it was already a church formally constituted, may be gathered from the general analogy of other churches that had already been long in existence, from Romans 12:5 ff., and less certainly from Romans 16:5. Especially may the existence of a body of presbyters, which was essential to church organization (Acts 14:23), be regarded as a matter of course. In the Acts of the Apostles the existence of the Church is presupposed (Acts 28:15) as something well known; and the author, who follows the thread of his Apostle’s biography, had no occasion to narrate its origin or development.

The origin of the Roman Church cannot therefore be determined with certainty. It is not incredible that even during the lifetime of Jesus faith in Him had taken root, in individual cases, among the Roman Jews (comp Clem. Recogn. i. 6). For among the pilgrims who flocked to the festivals at Jerusalem from all countries Romans also were wont to be present (Acts 2:10), and that too in considerable numbers, because the multitude of Jews in Rome had since the time of Pompey become extraordinarily great (see Philo, leg. ad Caj. II. p. 568; Dio Cass. xxxvi. 6; Joseph. Antt. xvii. 11, 1), including Jews directly from Palestine (prisoners of war, see Philo, l.c(229)), of whom a large portion had attained to freedom, the rights of citizenship, and even wealth. Is it unlikely that individual festal pilgrims from Rome, impressed by the words and works of Jesus in Jerusalem, carried back with them to their homes the first seeds of the faith? To this view it cannot be objected (as by Reiche), that Christianity did not spread beyond the bounds of Palestine until after the miracle of Pentecost; for there is mention, in fact, in Matthew 10 of the official missionary activity of the Apostles, and in Acts 8:1 ff. of that of emigrants from Jerusalem. If the former and the latter did not labour in foreign lands until a subsequent period, this by no means excludes the possibility of the conversion of individual foreigners, partly Jews, partly proselytes, who became believers in Jerusalem. It is further probable that there were some Romans among the three thousand who came over to the Christian faith at the first Pentecost (Acts 2:10); at least it would be very arbitrary to exclude these, who are expressly mentioned among the witnesses of what occurred at Pentecost, from participation in its results. Lastly, it is probable that the persecution which broke out with the stoning of Stephen drove some Palestinian Christians to take refuge even in the distant capital of the world, distinguished by its religious toleration, and in fact inclined to Oriental modes of worship (Athenaeus, Deipnos. I. p. 20 B., calls it ἐπιτομὴν τῆς οἰκουμένης, and says: καὶ γὰρ ὅλα τὰ ἔθνη ἀθρόως αὐτόθι συνῴκισται). For that this dispersion of the Christians of Jerusalem was not confined to Samaria and Judaea (an objection here urged by Reiche and Köllner), is proved by Acts 11:19, where emigrants are mentioned who had gone as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus. And how easily might some find their way even to Rome, seeing that the brisk maritime intercourse between these places and Italy afforded them opportunity, and seeing that they might expect to find admittance and repose among their countrymen in Rome, who were strangers to the fanatical zeal of Palestine. But although, in consequence of the constant intercourse maintained by the Jews at Rome with Asia, Egypt and Greece, and especially with Palestine (Gieseler, Kirchengesch. I. § 17), various Christians may have visited Rome, and various Jews from Rome may have become Christians, all the influences hitherto mentioned could not establish a Christian congregational life in Rome. Individual Christians were there, and certainly also Christian fellowship, but still no organized church. To plant such a church, there was needed, as is plain from the analogy of all other cases of the founding of churches with which we are acquainted, official action on the part of teachers endowed directly or indirectly with apostolic authority.

Who the founder of the Roman congregational life was, however, is utterly unknown. The Catholic Church names the Apostle Peter; concerning whom, along with the gradual development of the hierarchy, there has been a gradual development of tradition, that he came to Rome in the second year, or at any rate about the beginning of the reign of the Emperor Claudius (according to Gams, A.D. 41), to overcome Simon Magus, and remained there twenty-five years (Gams: twenty-four years and an indefinite number of days), till his death, as its first bishop. See Eusebius, Chron. (in Mai’s Script, vet. nov. coll. VIII. p. 376, 378); and Jerome, de vir. ill. 1.(230) But that Peter in the year 44, and at the date of the apostolic conference in the year 52, was still resident in Jerusalem, is evident from Acts 12:4; Acts 15:7, and Galatians 2:1 ff. From Acts 12:7 a journey to Rome cannot be inferred.(231) Further, that still later, when Paul was living at Ephesus, Peter had not been labouring in Rome, is evident from Acts 19:21, because Paul followed the principle of not interfering with another Apostle’s field of labour (Romans 15:20; comp 2 Corinthians 10:16); and, had Peter been in Rome when Paul wrote to the Romans, he would have been saluted by the latter before all others; for the numerous salutations in ch. 16 presuppose an accurate acquaintance with the teachers who were then in Rome. Peter cannot have been labouring in Rome at all before Paul himself was brought thither, because the former, as Apostle to the Jews, would have brought Christianity into closer contact with the Jewish population there than is apparent in Acts 28:22. It is even in the highest degree improbable that Peter was in Rome prior to the writing of the Epistle to the Philippians—the only one which was certainly written by Paul in Rome—or at the time of its being written; for it is inconceivable that Paul should not in this letter have mentioned a fellow-Apostle, and that one Peter, especially when he had to complain so deeply of being forsaken as at Philippians 2:20. Consequently the arrival of Peter in Rome, which was followed very soon by his execution—and which is accredited by such ancient and strong testimony (Dionysius of Corinth, in Euseb. ii. 25; Caius, in Euseb. ii. 25; Origen, in Euseb. iii. 1; Irenaeus; Tertullian, etc.) that it cannot be in itself rejected—is to be placed only towards the end of Paul’s captivity, subsequent to the composition of the Epistle to the Philippians. If, therefore, the tradition of the Roman Church having been founded by Peter—a view disputed even by Catholic theologians like Hug, Herbst, Feilmoser, Klee, Ellendorf, Maier, and Stengel, who however are vehemently opposed by Windischmann, Stenglein, Reithmayr, and many others(233)—must be entirely disregarded (although it is still defended among Protestants by Bertholdt, Mynster and Thiersch), it is on the other hand highly probable, that a Christian church was founded at Rome only subsequent to Paul’s transference of his missionary labours to Europe; since there is no sort of indication, that on his first appearance in Macedonia and Achaia he anywhere found a congregation already existing. He himself in fact stood in need of a special direction from Christ to pass over to Europe (Acts 16:9 f.); and so another official herald of the faith can hardly before that time have penetrated as far as Italy. But, when Paul was labouring successfully in Greece, it was very natural that apostolic men of his school should find motive and occasion for carrying their evangelic ministry still further westward,—to the capital of the Gentile world. The expulsion of the Jews from Rome under Claudius (Sueton. Claud. 25; Acts 18:2) served, under Divine guidance, as a special means for this end. Refugees to the neighbouring Greece became Christians, Christians of the Pauline type, and then, on their return to Rome, came forward as preachers of Christianity and organisers of a church. We have historical confirmation of this in the instance of Aquila and Priscilla, who emigrated as Jews to Corinth, dwelt there with Paul for upwards of a year and a half, and at the date of our Epistle had again settled in Rome, where they appear, as previously in Ephesus (1 Corinthians 16:19), according to Romans 16:3 as teachers and the possessors of a house where the Roman church assembled.(234) It is probable that others also, especially among the persons mentioned in ch. 16, were in similar ways led by God; but it is certain that a chief place among the founders of the church belongs to Aquila and Priscilla; since among the many who are greeted by Paul in the 16th chap. he presents to them the first salutation, and that with a more laudatory designation than is accorded to any of the others.

Christianity, having taken root in the first instance among the Jews, found the more readily an entrance among the Gentiles in Rome, because the popular heathen religion had already fallen into a contempt inducing despair both among the cultivated and uncultivated classes (see Gieseler I. i. § 11–14; Schneckenburger, neutest. Zeitgesch. p. 59 f.; Holtzmann, Judenthum u. Christenthum, p. 305 ff.). Hence the inclination to Monotheism was very general; and the number of those who had gone over to Judaism was very great (Juvenal, Sat. xiv. 96 ff.; Tac. Ann. xv. 44, Hist. v. 5; Seneca, in Augustine, de civ. Dei, vii. 11; Joseph. Antt. xviii. 3, 5). How much attention and approval, therefore, must the liberal system of religion, elevated above all the fetters of a deterrent legal rigour, as preached by Aquila and other Pauline teachers, have met with among the Romans dissatisfied with heathenism! From the description of most of the persons named in ch. 16, from the express approval given to the doctrine in which the Romans had been instructed, Romans 16:17, Romans 6:17, and even from the fact of the composition of the letter itself, inasmuch as not one of the now extant letters of the Apostle is directed to a non-Pauline church, we may with certainty infer that Pauline Christianity was preponderant in Rome; and from this it is a further necessary inference that a very important part of the Roman church consisted of Gentile-Christians. This Gentile-Christian part must have been the preponderating one, and must have formed its chief constituent element (in opposition to Baur, Schwegler, Krehl, Baumgarten-Crusius, van Hengel, Volkmar, Reuss, Lutterbeck, Thiersch, Holtzmann, Mangold, Grau, and Sabatier), since Paul expressly and repeatedly designates and addresses the Romans in general as belonging to the ἔθνη (Romans 1:6; Romans 1:13, Romans 11:13); and asserts before them the importance of his calling as Apostle to the Gentiles (Romans 15:15 f., Romans 1:5; comp Romans 16:4; Romans 16:26). Comp Neander, Gesch. d. Pflanzung, etc., ed. 4, p. 452 ff., Tholuck, Philippi, Wieseler, Hofmann. Indeed, we must presume in accordance with the apostolic agreement of Galatians 2:7 ff., that Paul would not have written a doctrinal Epistle to the Romans, especially one containing his entire gospel, if the church had been, in the main, a church of the περιτομὴ and not of the ἀκροβυστία.(237) Even ch. Romans 7:1, where the readers are described as γινώσκοντες νόμον, as well as the numerous references to the Old Testament, and proofs adduced from it, are far from attesting the predominance of Jewish Christianity in Rome.(238) They are fully explained, when we recollect that in the apostolic age all Christian knowledge was conveyed through the channel of the Old Testament (Romans 16:26); that an acquaintance with the law and the prophets, which was constantly on the increase by their being publicly read in the assemblies (comp on Galatians 4:21), was also to be found among the Gentile-Christians; and that the mingling of Jews and Gentiles in the churches, even without a Judaizing influence being exerted on the latter (as in the case of the Galatians), could not but tend to further the use of that Old Testament path which Christian preaching and knowledge had necessarily to pursue. The grounds upon which Baur (in the Tübing. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, p. 144 ff. 1857, p. 60 ff., and in his Paulus, I. p. 343 ff. ed. 2; also in his Christenth. d. drei erst. Jahrb. p. 62 ff. ed. 2; see also Volckmar, d. Röm. Kirche, p. 1 ff.; Holsten, z. Ev. u. Paul. u. Petr. p. 411) seeks to establish the preponderance of Jewish Christianity will be dealt with in connection with the passages concerned; as will also the defence of that preponderance which Mangold has given, while correcting in many respects the positions of Baur. The middle course attempted by Beyschlag, l.c(240) p. 640—that the main element of the church consisted of native Roman proselytes to Judaism, so that we should regard the church as Gentile-Christian in its lineage, but as Jewish-Christian in its habits of thought—is unsupported by any relevant evidence in the Epistle itself, or by any indication in particular or a previous state of proselytism.

But even if there was merely a considerable portion of the Christian church at Rome consisting of those who had been previously Jews (as, in particular, Romans 14:1 ff. refers to such), it must still appear strange, and might even cast a doubt upon the existence of a regularly organized church (Bleek, Beitr. p. 55, and Einl. p. 412; comp Calovius and others), that when Paul arrives as a prisoner in Rome, and wishes to acquaint himself with the Jewish community there, the leaders of the latter make no mention of a Christian congregation at Rome, but evince merely a superficial cognisance of the Christian sect in general (Acts 28:22). But the Jewish leaders are here speaking as officials, and, as such, are not inclined without special immediate occasion to express their views before the captive stranger as to the position of the Christian body which existed in Rome itself. A designation of the Christian sect generally in accordance with its notorious outward reputation—such as might bring it into suspicion—is enough for them; but as to the precise relation in which this sect stands to them in Rome itself they do not feel themselves called upon to say anything for the present, and, with discreet reserve, are therefore wholly silent respecting it. This narrative therefore of Acts is neither to be regarded as a fiction due to the tendency of the author (Baur, Zeller, Holtzmann), nor to be explained, arbitrarily and inadequately, by the expulsion of the Jews under Claudius (Olshausen), which had induced the Roman Jewish-Christians to separate themselves entirely from the Jews, so that on the return of the latter from exile the former remained unnoticed by them. Neither is it to be accounted for, with Neander—overlooking the peculiar character of Jewish religious interests—by the vast size of the metropolis; nor, with Baumgarten, by the predominance of the Gentile-Christians there; nor yet, with older writers, by the hypothesis—unjust and incapable of proof—that the Roman Jews acted a dishonest and hypocritical part on the occasion. Not dishonesty, but prudence and caution are evinced in their conduct (comp Schneckenburger, Philippi, Tholuck, Mangold), for the explanation of which we do not require, in addition to what they themselves express in Acts 28:22, to assume any special outward reason, such as that they had been rendered by the Claudian measure more shy and reserved (Philippi; comp Ewald, apost. Zeit. p. 588, ed. 3); especially seeing that there is no just ground for referring the words of Suetonius, “Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit” (Claud. 25), to disputes between Jews and Christians relative to the Messiahship of Jesus, contrary to the definite expression “tumultuare.”(244)

We may add that our Epistle—since Peter cannot have laboured in Rome before it was written—is a fact destructive of the historical basis of the Papacy, in so far as the latter is made to rest on the founding of the Roman church and the exercise of its episcopate by that Apostle. For Paul the writing of such a didactic Epistle to a church of which he knew Peter to be the founder and bishop, would have been, according to the principle of his apostolic independence, an impossible inconsistency.

Long before writing this Epistle ( ἀπὸ πολλῶν ἐτῶν, Romans 15:23) the Apostle had cherished the fixed and longing desire (Acts 19:21) to preach the Gospel in person at Rome (Romans 1:11 ff.)—in that metropolis of the world, where the flourishing of Christianity would necessarily exert an influence of the utmost importance on the entire West; and where, moreover, the special relation in which the church stood to the Apostle through its Pauline founders and teachers, and through the many friends and fellow-labourers whom he possessed in the city (ch. 16), claimed his ardent and loving interest. His official labours in other regions had hitherto prevented the carrying out of this design (Romans 1:13, Romans 15:22). Now indeed he hoped that he should soon accomplish its realisation; but, partly because he wished first to undertake his collection-journey to Jerusalem (Romans 15:23-25), and partly because Spain, and not Rome (Romans 15:24-28), was to be the goal of his travels to the West, a lengthened sojourn in Rome cannot have formed part of his plan at that time. Accordingly, in pursuance of his apostolic purpose with reference to the Roman church, he could not but wish, on the one hand, no longer to withhold from it at least such a written communication of his doctrine, which he had so long vainly desired to proclaim orally, as should be suitable to the church’s present need; and on the other hand, by this written communication to pave the way for his intended personal labours in such fitting manner as to render a prolonged stay there unnecessary. This twofold desire occasioned the composition of our Epistle, for the transmission of which the journey of the Corinthian deaconess Phoebe to Rome (Romans 16:1) afforded an opportunity which he gladly embraced. He could not fail to possess a sufficient acquaintance with the circumstances of the church, when we consider his position towards the teachers saluted in ch. 16, and the eminent importance of the church itself—of whose state, looking to the active intercourse between Corinth and Rome, he was certainly thoroughly informed—as well as the indications afforded by ch. 12, 14, 15 That the Epistle was called forth by special communications made from Rome itself (possibly by Aquila and Priscilla) is nowhere apparent from its contents; on the contrary, such a view is, from the general nature of the contents, highly improbable. Of all the Apostle’s letters, our present Epistle is that which has least arisen out of the necessity of dealing with special casual circumstances. According to Baur, the readers, as Jewish Christians (imbued also with erroneous Ebionite views), gave rise to the letter by their opposition to Paul, in so far, namely, as they saw in Paul’s apostolic labours among the Gentiles a detriment to the Jews, contrary to the promises given to them by God, and therefore asserted the national privileges of their theocratic primacy in an exclusive spirit as opposed to the universalism of the Pauline teaching. Comp also Schwegler, nachapost. Zeit. I. p. 285 ff.; Volckmar, l.c(247) p. 7 ff.; and also Reuss, Gesch. d. N. T. § 105 ff. ed. 4. In this view the Epistle is made to assume a specifically polemic character, which it manifestly has not (how very different in this respect the Ep. to the Galatians and those to the Corinthians!); it is assumed that the Church was a Jewish-Christian one; and an importance, too great in relation to the whole, and indefensible from an exegetical point of view,(248) is attached to the section, chs. 9–11 (even in Baur’s second edition, which contains on this point a partial retractation), while, on the other hand, the two last chapters have to be sacrificed to critical doubts that have no foundation. In no other Pauline Epistle is the directly polemical element so much in the background; and where it does find expression, it is only for the moment (as in Romans 16:17-20),—a sure proof that it was least of all the concrete appearance and working of Antipaulinism which the Apostle had occasion in this Epistle to oppose. Against that enemy he would have waged a very different warfare, as is shown in particular in the case of the Epistle to the Galatians, so nearly allied in its contents. Nor is that enemy to be discovered in the weak in faith of Romans 14:1 ff. Of course, however, Paul could not present his Gospel otherwise than in antagonism to the Jewish righteousness of works and arrogance, which it had already overcome and would continue to do so; for this antagonism belonged to the essence of his Gospel and had to assert itself, wherever there was Judaism—only in various forms and degrees according to the given circumstances—and therefore at Rome as well. The view of Thiersch (Kirche im apostol. Zeitalt. p. 166), that Paul desired to elevate the Jewish-Christian church, which had consisted of the simple followers of Peter, from their still somewhat backward standpoint to more enlarged views, rests on the erroneous opinion that Peter had laboured in Rome.

The object of our Epistle, accordingly, was by no means the drawing up of a systematic doctrinal system in general (see, against this view, Köstlin in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1856, p. 68 ff.; Grau, Entwickelungsgesch. II. p. 114); but it is not on the other hand to be restricted more specially than by saying: Paul wished to lay before the Romans in writing, for their Christian edification (Romans 1:11, Romans 16:25), his evangelic doctrine—the doctrine of the sole way of salvation given in Christ—viewed in its full, specific character as the superseding of Judaism, in such a way as the necessities and circumstances of the Church demanded, and as he would have preached it among them, had he been present in person (Romans 1:11). The mode in which he had to accomplish this was determined by the circumstance, that he deemed it necessary for his object fully to set forth before the Roman church, in a manner proportioned to the high importance of its position, this Gospel as to which his disciples had already instructed them, in the entire connection of its constituent fundamental principles.(249) In no other letter has he done this so completely and thoroughly;(250) hence it is justly regarded as a grand scheme of his whole teaching,(251) in the precise form which he held to be suitable for its presentation to the Romans. How much he must have had this at heart! How much he must have wished to erect such a complete and abiding memorial of his Gospel in the very capital of the Gentile world, which was to become the Antioch of the West! Not merely the present association of Jews and Gentiles in the church, but, generally, the essential relation in which, according to the very Pauline teaching, Christianity stood to Judaism, required him to subject this relation in particular, viewed in its strong antagonism to all legal righteousness, to an earnest and thorough discussion. This was a necessary part of his design; and consequently its execution, though on the whole based on a thoroughly didactic plan, nevertheless assumed, in the presence of the given points of antagonism, partly an apologetic, partly a polemic form, as the subject required; without however any precise necessity to contend against particular doctrinal misconceptions among the Romans, against divisions and erroneous views, such as had appeared, for example, among the Galatians and Corinthians; or against a Judaistic leaven brought with them by the Jews and Jewish-Christians who had returned to Rome (comp Grau). The actual dangers for the moment in the Church were more of a moral than a dogmatic character—a remark which applies also to the opposition between the Gentile Christians, strong in faith, and the scrupulous Jewish Christians—and have merely given occasion to some more special notices (Romans 13:1 ff.; Romans 14:1 ff.), and hints (Romans 16:1 ff.) in the hortatory portion of the Epistle. The Judaistic opponents of Pauline Christianity had not yet penetrated as far as Rome, and were not to arrive there till later (Ep. to the Philippians). It was therefore an untenable position when, even before the time of Baur, who assumed the object of the Epistle to be the systematic and radical refutation of Jewish exclusiveness, its aim was very frequently viewed as that of a polemic against Jewish arrogance, which had been specially aroused on account of the calling of the Gentiles (Augustine, Theodoret, Melancthon, Michaelis, Eichhorn, Schmidt, Flatt, Schott, and others(253)). The same may be said of the hypothesis that Paul wished, in a conciliatory sense, to obviate misunderstandings between Jewish and Gentile Christians (Hug). There is no evidence in the Epistle of actual circumstances to justify any such special definitions of its object; and even from Romans 16:20 it cannot be assumed that Judaistic temptation had already begun (as Grau thinks). The comprehensiveness of the object of our Epistle—from which, however, neither the combating of Judaism, which arose naturally and necessarily out of the nature of the Pauline Gospel, nor (seeing that the future coming forward of his opponents could not be concealed from the Apostle) the prophylactic design of it, may be excluded—has been justly defended by Tholuck, Rückert, de Wette, Reiche, Köllner, Fritzsche, Philippi, Wieseler, Hausrath and others. Comp Ewald, p. 317 f. Along with it, however, Th. Schott (comp also Mangold, Riggenbach, Sabatier) has assumed a special personally apologetic purpose on the part of the Apostle;(256) namely that, being now on the point of proceeding with his Gentile mission-work in the far West, Paul wished to gain for his new labours a fixed point of support in the Roman church,(257) and on this account wished to instruct the Romans as to the significance and justification of the step, and to inspire them with full confidence regarding it, for which reason he exhibits to them in detail the nature and principles of his work. Against this view it may be urged, in general, that Paul nowhere gives expression to this special purpose, though the announcement of it would have been of decided importance, both for his own official interests and for the information of the Roman church (they could not read it between the lines either in the preface, Romans 15:1-15, or in the conclusion, Romans 15:14-33); and, in particular, that the Apostle’s intention of visiting the Romans only in passing through, without making a lengthened sojourn, is incompatible with the assumed purpose which he is alleged to have formed regarding the church. Moreover, a justification on so great a scale of the Gentile mission would presuppose not a Gentile-Christian, but a Jewish-Christian, church and its requirements. Hence Mangold, holding the same view that the Epistle contains a justification of the Gentile apostleship, has the advantage of consistency in his favour; his theory is nevertheless based on the unsatisfactory ground adopted by Baur, namely, that, the Church was Jewish-Christian. See, further, Beyschlag, l.c(258) p. 636 ff., and especially Dietzsch, Adam u. Christus, p. 14 ff.

As to contents, our Epistle, after the salutation and introduction (Romans 1:1-15), falls into two main portions, a theoretical and a hortatory, after which follows the conclusion (Romans 15:14 to Romans 16:27). The theoretic portion (Romans 1:16 to Romans 11:36) bears its theme at the outset, Romans 1:16, 17: “Righteousness before God, for Jews and Gentiles, comes from faith.” Thereupon is established, in the first place, the necessity of this plan of salvation, as that which the whole human race required, Gentiles and Jews alike, because the latter also, even according to their own law, are guilty before God, and cannot attain to righteousness (Romans 1:17 to Romans 3:20). The nature of this plan of salvation is then made clear, namely, that righteousness really and only comes from faith; which is especially obvious from the justification of Abraham (Romans 3:21 to Romans 4:25). The blessed results of this plan of salvation are, partly the blissful inward condition of the justified before God (Romans 5:1-11); partly that justification through Christ is just as universally effective, as Adam’s fall was once universally destructive (Romans 5:12-21); and partly that true morality is not only not endangered by the manifestation of grace in Christ, but is promoted and quickened by it (chap. 6), and made free from the fetters of the law (Romans 7:1-6). This last assertion demanded a defence of the law, as that which is in itself good and holy, but was abused by the sinful principle in man, against his own better will, to his destruction (Romans 7:17-25)—a sad variance of man with, himself, which could not be removed through the law, but only through Christ, whose Spirit produces in us the freedom of the new divine life, the consciousness of adoption, and assurance of future glory (ch. 8). From the lofty description of this blessed connection with Christ, Paul now suddenly passes to the saddening thought that a great part of that very Jewish people, so signally favoured of God, has rejected the plan of redemption; and therefore he develops at length a Theodicée with regard to the exclusion, apparently irreconcileable with the divine promises, of so many members of the theocracy from the attainment of salvation in Christ (chs. 9–11). The hortatory portion (chs. 12–15:13) gives the essentials of the Pauline ethical system, partly in the form of general exhortations (Romans 12:1-21; Romans 13:8-14), and partly in some special discussions which were deemed necessary in the circumstances of the Romans (Romans 13:1-7, Romans 14:1 to Romans 15:13). The conclusion comprises in the first place—corresponding to the introduction (Romans 1:8-15)—personal explanations with regard to the Apostle’s intended journey by way of Rome to Spain (Romans 15:14-33); then the recommendation of Phoebe (Romans 16:1 ff.) and salutations (Romans 16:3-16); a warning with a closing wish (Romans 16:17-20); some supplementary salutations with a second closing wish (Romans 16:21-24); and, finally, a concluding doxology (Romans 16:25-27).

_16:21-24); and, finally, a concluding doxology (Romans 16:25-27).

This Epistle is the true masterpiece of the N. T., and the very purest Gospel, which is well worthy and deserving that a Christian man should not only learn it by heart, word for word, but also that he should daily deal with it as with the daily bread of men’s souls. For it can never be too much or too well read or studied; and the more it is handled, the more precious it becomes and the letter it tastes.”

Luther, Preface.

§ 4. PLACE AND TIME OF COMPOSITION.

GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE

Since the Apostle, when he composed his letter, was on the point of conveying to Jerusalem the proceeds of a collection made in Macedonia and Achaia (Romans 15:25-27), and intended to journey thence by way of Rome to Spain (Romans 15:28, comp Acts 19:21), we are thus directed to his last sojourn—of three months—in Achaia, Acts 20:3. His purpose was to cross over directly from Achaia to Syria in order to reach Jerusalem, but he was led, owing to Jewish plots, to take quite a different route, namely, back through Macedonia (Acts 20:3). This change in the plan of his journey had not been made when he wrote his Epistle; otherwise he would not have failed to mention in ch. 15—where he had at Romans 15:25; Romans 15:31 very immediate inducement to do so—a circumstance so remarkable on account of its novelty and importance. We justly infer therefore—even apart from the fact that the composition of such an epistle presupposes a somewhat lengthened and quiet abode—that it was written before Paul again departed from Achaia. Although Luke mentions no particular city as the scene of the Apostle’s three months’ residence at that time, still it is, à priori, probable that he spent at least the greater part of the time in Corinth. For Corinth was the principal church of the country, and was in the eyes of the Apostle pre-eminently important and precious on account of his earlier labours there. But our attention is also directed to Corinth by the passages 1 Corinthians 16:1-7, 2 Corinthians 9:4; 2 Corinthians 12:20 to 2 Corinthians 13:3, from which it is plain that, on his journey down from Macedonia to Achaia, Paul had chosen that city as the place of his sojourn, where he wished to complete the business of the collection, and from which he would convey the money to Jerusalem. Now, since the recommendation of the deaconess Phoebe from the Corinthian seaport Cenchreae (Romans 16:1-2), as well as the salutation from his host Gaius (Romans 16:23, comp with 1 Corinthians 1:14), point to no other city than Corinth, we may, beyond all doubt, abide by it as the place of writing, and not with Dr. Paulus (de orig. ep. P. ad Rom. paralip. Jen. 1801, and Römerbrief, p. 231), on account of Romans 15:19 (see on that passage), put forward a claim on behalf of a town in Illyria. Theodoret has admirably proved in detail its composition at Corinth.

The time of composition accordingly falls in A.D. 59, when Paul regarded his ministry in the East as closed, and (see Romans 15:19; Romans 15:23) saw a new and vast scene of action opened up to him in the West, of which Rome should be the centre and Spain the goal.

The genuineness is decisively attested by the testimonies of the orthodox church (the first express and special quotations from it are found in Irenaeus, Haer. iii. 16, 3, 9, while previously there are more or less certain echoes of its language or traces of its use),(261) as well as of the Gnostics Basilides, Valentinus, Heracleon, Epiphanes, and Theodotus; and there is not a single trace that even the Judaizing heretics, who rejected the authority of the Apostle, at all rejected the Pauline authorship of our Epistle. In order to warrant any doubt or denial of its authenticity, therefore, the most cogent internal grounds would need to be adduced; and in the utter absence of any such grounds, the worthless scruples of Evanson (Dissonance of the four generally received Evangelists, 1792, p. 259 ff.) and the frivolities of Bruno Bauer could find no supporters. The Epistle bears throughout the lively original impress of the Apostle’s mind, and his characteristic qualities, in its matter and its form; is the chief record of his Gospel in its entire connection and antagonism; and is therefore also the richest original-apostolic charter and model of all true evangelical Protestantism. The opinion of Weisse (philosoph. Dogm. I. p. 146), which ultimately amounts to the suggestion of a number of interpolations as interwoven throughout the Epistle (see his Beitr. z. Krit. d. Paul. Br., edited by Sulze, p. 28 ff.), rests simply on a subjective criticism of style, which has discarded all weight of external evidence.

The originality of the Epistle extends also to its language, the Greek, in which Paul dictated it to Tertius.(262) The note of the Syrian Scholiast on the Peschito, that Paul wrote his letter in Latin—a theory maintained also, but for a polemical purpose, by Hardouin, Salmeron, Bellarmine, Corn, à Lapide, and others—is based merely upon a hasty inference from the native language of the readers. Its composition in Greek however corresponds fully, not only with the Hellenic culture of the Apostle himself, but also with the linguistic circumstances of Rome (see Credner’s Einl. II. p. 383 f.; Bernhardy, Griech. Literat, ed. 2, p. 483 ff.), and with the analogy of the rest of the ancient Christian writings addressed to Rome (Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus, et al(263)).

That the two last chapters are genuine and inseparable parts of the Epistle, see in the critical remarks on ch. 15.

 


Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.

Bibliography Information
Meyer, Heinrich. "Commentary on Romans:4 Overview". Heinrich Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. http://odl.studylight.org/commentaries/hmc/romans-0.html. 1832.

Commentary Navigator
Search This Commentary
Enter query in the box below
To report dead links, typos, or html errors or suggestions about making these resources more useful use our convenient contact form
Powered by Lightspeed Technology